186 replies to this topic

[William Schryver]

One of the standard critical arguments in relation to the Book of Abraham controversy is that the BoA supposedly links itself to the so-called â??Sensenâ? (or â??Book of Breathings Made by Isisâ?) text via its apparent internal reference to Facsimile #1, which is known to have originally preceded the Sensen text on the scroll of Hor.  While the overall length of the scroll of Hor is a disputed question, we do know that the scroll begins with the illustration known as Facsimile #1, which was then immediately followed by the Sensen text, which was then followed by an unknown length of scroll.

The critics claim that additional strength is given their argument by the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  The documents known respectively as KEPA #2 and #3 each contain text of a little more than the first chapter of the Book of Abraham in the main body of their pages, and successive characters from the Sensen text in the left column.

Of course, the critical argument, originating with Edward Ashment decades ago, has been that these two KEPA manuscripts are actually the transcripts of Joseph Smithâ??s orally-dictated â??translationâ? of the Book of Abraham.  And since we now know that the Sensen text has nothing to do with Abraham, then it follows that Joseph Smithâ??s purported â??translationâ? was nothing of the sort; it is a fictionalized account originating in the mind of a pretended prophet.  Or so the critics would have us believe.

Upon closer examination, however, some key questions must be considered:

• Is it incontrovertible that KEPA #2 and #3 are transcripts of an oral dictation?
  
  
• Is Abraham 1:12 an incontrovertible internal reference to Facsimile #1?

We have previously examined question #1, and I have presented persuasive evidence that both of these manuscripts cannot be, in fact, simultaneously-produced transcripts of an oral dictation.  Despite certain elements that admittedly appear consistent with a dictation theory, there are numerous compelling, even overriding, evidences that establish these documents as being visual copies of some earlier document(s).  Although I anticipate revisiting that topic in the near future, it will not be a subject for our current discussion.

Our present discussion will examine whether or not Abraham 1:12 constitutes an â??internal referenceâ? to Facsimile #1, and that therefore the book implicitly links itself to the Sensen text.

The published version of Abraham 1:12 - 13 reads:

Quote

And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

I have emphasized the portion of the text that will be the focus of our examination.

Of course, the illustration to which this phrase refers is plainly the vignette known as Facsimile #1 â?? the lion couch scene where a priest with a drawn knife stands over a man laid on his back on an altar.

At first glance, it would appear (if we are assuming this to actually be the record of Abraham) that Abraham is clearly stating that this illustration immediately precedes his record.  And, since we know the Sensen text followed the vignette in question on the scroll of Hor, and since we know the Sensen text is not the record of Abraham â?¦ well, everyone understands the implications.

However, upon closer examination of the all-important KEPA Mss. #2 and #3, it becomes apparent that there is something quite unusual about Abraham 1:12.  In KEPA Ms. #2, the phrase â?I will refer you the representation at the commencement of this record.â? is, in fact, a later interlineal insertion in the text.  Originally, the text read:

Quote

â?¦ and it
came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me
that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins
upon this alter, and that you might have a knowl-
edge of this alter
[New Egyptian character placed in margin]
It was made after, the form of a bedsted â?¦

The interlineal insertion apparently commenced with a parenthesis, the bottom of which overlays the cross of the â??tâ? and the ascender of the â??hâ? in the word â??theâ? preceding â??form of a bedsted.â? Then the scribe, apparently recognizing that he could not insert the full phrase intended in the space following the parenthesis, commenced writing â??I will refer you â?¦â? further to the left and even further above the parenthesis â?? the word â??willâ? necessarily rising to avoid the top of the parenthesis.  He then proceeds to write the remainder of the line to â??that is at the â?¦â? and then finishes the phrase by starting with â??commencement â?¦â? immediately after the parenthesis. There is no closing parenthesis.

The size of the letters in the entire phrase are, on average, less than 70% the size of the letters above and below the insertion, thus reinforcing the conclusion that the scribe was consciously attempting to fit the phrase into a space circumscribed by lines above and below.  Here are relevant examples, the first being a typical instance of the word â??ofâ? on the page, and the second the instance of â??ofâ? in the phrase in question:



Significantly, the entire phrase from â??I will refer you â?¦â? to â??commencement of this record.â? was inserted after Williams had continued to verse 13, perhaps even much later.

In addition to this anomaly attested in KEPA #2, we also see something unusual at the same point in KEPA #3 â?? unusual, and yet quite different.

In Warren Parrishâ??s manuscript at this point, we see the following:

Quote

â?¦ and it came to pass that the
priests, laid violence upon me, that
they might slay me also, as they
did those virgins upon this altar,
and that you might have a know-
ledge of this altar, I will refer you to the
representation, --t--h--a--t-- --i--s-- --l--y--i--n--g-- --b--e--f--o--r--e-- --y--o--u--
at the commencement of this record.

Parrish includes the entire phrase â??that is lying before youâ? and then strikes it out afterwards.

Now, what does this all mean?  That is a good question, and I donâ??t pretend to have a complete answer.

What it does mean is that there was quite obviously some question, doubt, dispute, uncertainty, etc., about how to make reference to the illustration now known as Facsimile #1.

Possibilities that I have contemplated include the following:

• Joseph Smith knew which Egyptian text corresponded to his â??translationâ? of the Book of Abraham, and that it was not adjacent to the illustration of the altar.  The revealed text originally read:
  
  

  â??â?¦ that you may have a knowledge of this altar, it was after the form of a bedstead â?¦â?

    
  The entire sentence â??I will refer you to the representation (that is lying before you) at the commencement of this recordâ? is a redaction introduced to the text by Joseph Smith in 1835.
  
  
  
• Joseph Smith knew which Egyptian text corresponded to his â??translationâ? of the Book of Abraham, and recognized that it was not adjacent to the illustration of the altar.  Indeed, it was after the Sensen text on the scroll.  (A distinct possibility underscored by Professor Geeâ??s most recent analysis concerning the original quantity of papyri.  Read here. )  However, it originally read:
  

  â??â?¦ that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation that is lying before you.â?

  Joseph Smith, recognizing that the text made reference to the illustration at the beginning of the scroll, modified the descriptive phrase to read â??at the commencement of this recordâ? since he planned to use the illustration in his published version of the Book of Abraham, and to place it at â??the commencementâ? of the text.
  .
  
• Neither Joseph Smith nor any of his scribes actually knew with certainty which set of Egyptian characters on the scrolls corresponded to Josephâ??s previously-received revelation of the first few chapters of the Book of Abraham.  However, since that revealed text made reference to the illustration which they did recognize on the scroll, they mistakenly assumed that the set of Egyptian characters following the illustration (the Sensen text) was in fact the Egyptian source of the text of the Book of Abraham.  In this scenario, the original revealed text read either:
  
  

  â??â?¦ that you may have a knowledge of this altar, it was after the form of a bedstead â?¦â?

  - or -

  â??â?¦ that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation that is lying before you.â?

  
  In this scenario, as with the others, the phrase directing the reader to an illustration â??at the commencement of this recordâ? is also a redaction introduced into the text by Joseph Smith in 1835.

In any case, it is apparent that the theory, advanced by critics of Joseph Smith, that attempts to link the Book of Abraham to the Sensen text on the basis of this particular verse, is a facile simplification that ignores the anomalous textual evidence manifest in these earliest known examples of the bookâ??s text.

Edited by William Schryver, 14 May 2008 - 02:45 PM.

[Chris Smith]

William,

Do you currently prefer the Q-manuscript theory?  Or the notion that MS 3 was copied from MS 2?

-Chris

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on May 14 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

William,

Do you currently prefer the Q-manuscript theory?  Or the notion that MS 3 was copied from MS 2?

-Chris

I do not believe that Ms. #3 was copied from Ms. #2.

Edit: After some thought, I think I should amend my statement accordingly:

As I believe I have stated in a previous thread, one possible explanation I have entertained regarding the origins of Ms. #3 (and Ms. #2, for that matter) is that it was intended to be an exact copy of the manuscript from which it derives -- a "proof" copy, if you will.  In other words, the scribe wanted to duplicate every detail of the exemplar in the abschrift.  That said, I see numerous problems in asserting that Ms. #2 was the exemplar in question.

Edited by William Schryver, 14 May 2008 - 02:47 PM.

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on May 14 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

I do not believe that Ms. #3 was copied from Ms. #2.

Edit: After some thought, I think I should amend my statement accordingly:

As I believe I have stated in a previous thread, one possible explanation I have entertained regarding the origins of Ms. #3 (and Ms. #2, for that matter) is that it was intended to be an exact copy of the manuscript from which it derives -- a "proof" copy, if you will.  In other words, the scribe wanted to duplicate every detail of the exemplar in the abschrift.  That said, I see numerous problems in asserting that Ms. #2 was the exemplar in question.

Hey Will,

Thanks for the clarification.  So you lean toward the hypothesis that MSS 2 and 3 are "proof copies" of a now-missing MS Q, yes?

You mentioned that the parenthesis overwrites the "t" and "h" in the next line.  How did you determine this?

-Chris

[William Schryver]

CS:

Quote

So you lean toward the hypothesis that MSS 2 and 3 are "proof copies" of a now-missing MS Q, yes?

I don't know what I could have said that would have made you come to that conclusion.

I think my characterization of the theory as one of many "possibilities" I have entertained was expressed in such a way as to be beyond misunderstanding.

The salient point is that both Mss. #2 and #3 exhibit unquestionable signs of being visual copies of an earlier document.  

In any case, that is not the topic of this thread -- although it may be again in the near future.

In answer to your last question: I looked at the document.

Edited by William Schryver, 14 May 2008 - 11:08 PM.

[gtaggart]

William Schryver, on May 14 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

CS:
I don't know what I could have said that would have made you come to that conclusion.

I think my characterization of the theory as one of many "possibilities" I have entertained was expressed in such a way as to be beyond misunderstanding.

The salient point is that both Mss. #2 and #3 exhibit unquestionable signs of being visual copies of an earlier copy.  

In any case, that is not the topic of this thread -- although it may be again in the near future.

In answer to your last question: I looked at the document.

Will,

Is your avatar an accurate image of the color copies of the KEP you have? Here's the same image provided by Brother Metcalfe:



I guess his images weren't so high quality after all.

[William Schryver]

GT:

Quote

Is your avatar an accurate image of the color copies of the KEP you have?

No.  It is a somewhat enhanced/stylized morpheme placed in a layer over a papyrus background.

From what little I have seen of Metcalfe's photos, they look excellent.  I've noted before that I think the brightness and contrast is boosted -- at least on some that I have seen posted on various websites.  That could be reflective of the film and/or lighting and development used, or simply from editing.  More often than not it looks like he has desaturated the images that he posts.  In other words, they are made to look almost black and white.

[Chris Smith]

Will,

Quote

In any case, that is not the topic of this thread -- although it may be again in the near future.

The relationship of the manuscripts will inform any theory we posit to explain how and when the phrase in question came to be included in the manuscript.

Quote

I don't know what I could have said that would have made you come to that conclusion.

I think my characterization of the theory as one of many "possibilities" I have entertained was expressed in such a way as to be beyond misunderstanding.

I see.  So what are some other possibilities you've entertained that explain the text-critical data?

-Chris

[Brian Hauglid]

William Schryver, on May 13 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

One of the standard critical arguments in relation to the Book of Abraham controversy is that the BoA supposedly links itself to the so-called â??Sensenâ? (or â??Book of Breathings Made by Isisâ?) text via its apparent internal reference to Facsimile #1, which is known to have originally preceded the Sensen text on the scroll of Hor.  While the overall length of the scroll of Hor is a disputed question, we do know that the scroll begins with the illustration known as Facsimile #1, which was then immediately followed by the Sensen text, which was then followed by an unknown length of scroll.

The critics claim that additional strength is given their argument by the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  The documents known respectively as KEPA #2 and #3 each contain text of a little more than the first chapter of the Book of Abraham in the main body of their pages, and successive characters from the Sensen text in the left column.

Of course, the critical argument, originating with Edward Ashment decades ago, has been that these two KEPA manuscripts are actually the transcripts of Joseph Smithâ??s orally-dictated â??translationâ? of the Book of Abraham.  And since we now know that the Sensen text has nothing to do with Abraham, then it follows that Joseph Smithâ??s purported â??translationâ? was nothing of the sort; it is a fictionalized account originating in the mind of a pretended prophet.  Or so the critics would have us believe.

Upon closer examination, however, some key questions must be considered:

• Is it incontrovertible that KEPA #2 and #3 are transcripts of an oral dictation?
  
  
• Is Abraham 1:12 an incontrovertible internal reference to Facsimile #1?

We have previously examined question #1, and I have presented persuasive evidence that both of these manuscripts cannot be, in fact, simultaneously-produced transcripts of an oral dictation.  Despite certain elements that admittedly appear consistent with a dictation theory, there are numerous compelling, even overriding, evidences that establish these documents as being visual copies of some earlier document(s).  Although I anticipate revisiting that topic in the near future, it will not be a subject for our current discussion.

Our present discussion will examine whether or not Abraham 1:12 constitutes an â??internal referenceâ? to Facsimile #1, and that therefore the book implicitly links itself to the Sensen text.

The published version of Abraham 1:12 - 13 reads:



I have emphasized the portion of the text that will be the focus of our examination.

Of course, the illustration to which this phrase refers is plainly the vignette known as Facsimile #1 â?? the lion couch scene where a priest with a drawn knife stands over a man laid on his back on an altar.

At first glance, it would appear (if we are assuming this to actually be the record of Abraham) that Abraham is clearly stating that this illustration immediately precedes his record.  And, since we know the Sensen text followed the vignette in question on the scroll of Hor, and since we know the Sensen text is not the record of Abraham â?¦ well, everyone understands the implications.

However, upon closer examination of the all-important KEPA Mss. #2 and #3, it becomes apparent that there is something quite unusual about Abraham 1:12.  In KEPA Ms. #2, the phrase â?I will refer you the representation at the commencement of this record.â? is, in fact, a later interlineal insertion in the text.  Originally, the text read:

The interlineal insertion apparently commenced with a parenthesis, the bottom of which overlays the cross of the â??tâ? and the ascender of the â??hâ? in the word â??theâ? preceding â??form of a bedsted.â? Then the scribe, apparently recognizing that he could not insert the full phrase intended in the space following the parenthesis, commenced writing â??I will refer you â?¦â? further to the left and even further above the parenthesis â?? the word â??willâ? necessarily rising to avoid the top of the parenthesis.  He then proceeds to write the remainder of the line to â??that is at the â?¦â? and then finishes the phrase by starting with â??commencement â?¦â? immediately after the parenthesis. There is no closing parenthesis.

The size of the letters in the entire phrase are, on average, less than 70% the size of the letters above and below the insertion, thus reinforcing the conclusion that the scribe was consciously attempting to fit the phrase into a space circumscribed by lines above and below.  Here are relevant examples, the first being a typical instance of the word â??ofâ? on the page, and the second the instance of â??ofâ? in the phrase in question:



Significantly, the entire phrase from â??I will refer you â?¦â? to â??commencement of this record.â? was inserted after Williams had continued to verse 13, perhaps even much later.

In addition to this anomaly attested in KEPA #2, we also see something unusual at the same point in KEPA #3 â?? unusual, and yet quite different.

In Warren Parrishâ??s manuscript at this point, we see the following:



Parrish includes the entire phrase â??that is lying before youâ? and then strikes it out afterwards.

Now, what does this all mean?  That is a good question, and I donâ??t pretend to have a complete answer.

What it does mean is that there was quite obviously some question, doubt, dispute, uncertainty, etc., about how to make reference to the illustration now known as Facsimile #1.

Possibilities that I have contemplated include the following:

• Joseph Smith knew which Egyptian text corresponded to his â??translationâ? of the Book of Abraham, and that it was not adjacent to the illustration of the altar.  The revealed text originally read:
  
  

  â??â?¦ that you may have a knowledge of this altar, it was after the form of a bedstead â?¦â?

    
  The entire sentence â??I will refer you to the representation (that is lying before you) at the commencement of this recordâ? is a redaction introduced to the text by Joseph Smith in 1835.
  
• Joseph Smith knew which Egyptian text corresponded to his â??translationâ? of the Book of Abraham, and recognized that it was not adjacent to the illustration of the altar.  Indeed, it was after the Sensen text on the scroll.  (A distinct possibility underscored by Professor Geeâ??s most recent analysis concerning the original quantity of papyri.  Read here. )  However, it originally read:
  

  â??â?¦ that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation that is lying before you.â?

  Joseph Smith, recognizing that the text made reference to the illustration at the beginning of the scroll, modified the descriptive phrase to read â??at the commencement of this recordâ? since he planned to use the illustration in his published version of the Book of Abraham, and to place it at â??the commencementâ? of the text.
  .
  
• Neither Joseph Smith nor any of his scribes actually knew with certainty which set of Egyptian characters on the scrolls corresponded to Josephâ??s previously-received revelation of the first few chapters of the Book of Abraham.  However, since that revealed text made reference to the illustration which they did recognize on the scroll, they mistakenly assumed that the set of Egyptian characters following the illustration (the Sensen text) was in fact the Egyptian source of the text of the Book of Abraham.  In this scenario, the original revealed text read either:
  
  

  â??â?¦ that you may have a knowledge of this altar, it was after the form of a bedstead â?¦â?

  - or -

  â??â?¦ that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation that is lying before you.â?

  
  In this scenario, as with the others, the phrase directing the reader to an illustration â??at the commencement of this recordâ? is also a redaction introduced into the text by Joseph Smith in 1835.

In any case, it is apparent that the theory, advanced by critics of Joseph Smith, that attempts to link the Book of Abraham to the Sensen text on the basis of this particular verse, is a facile simplification that ignores the anomalous textual evidence manifest in these earliest known examples of the bookâ??s text.

Hi all,

Although from a text-critical stance one can find some areas of ambiguity
in Will's proffered textual analysis, it would certainly surprise me, from a
text-critical point of view, to say Ms 2 (Ashment=1a) line 37 starting with
"I will refer . . ." and line 38 "(commencement of . . ." is not a later
interlinear/sublinear insertion.

Cheers,
Brian

[William Schryver]

CS:

Quote

The relationship of the manuscripts will inform any theory we posit to explain how and when the phrase in question came to be included in the manuscript.

Iâ??m not sure I follow your reasoning here.  The question of this being a later insertion is not, that I can see, dependent on the relationship of this manuscript to any other.

This insertion is in the form of a parenthetical comment, and its later addition to the text brings into question its origin â?? ancient or modern.

As I have illustrated above, the text is not dependent on this phrase.  It would read sensibly without it:

Quote

â??â?¦ that you may have a knowledge of this altar, it was after the form of a bedstead â?¦â?

Of course, the fact that weâ??re dealing here with a later, interlinear insertion, in conjunction with the anomalous nature of Abr. 1:12 in Ms. #3, obviously tends to militate against a theory of simultaneous transcripts of an oral dictation.
.
.
.
Hauglid:

Quote

... it would certainly surprise me, from a text-critical point of view, to say Ms 2 (Ashment=1a) line 37 starting with "I will refer . . ." and line 38 "(commencement of . . ." is not a later interlinear/sublinear insertion.

Obviously I agree.

In fact, I really cannot envision any other plausible explanation.  The evidence is significant and compelling:

• Two lines of text are squeezed into the space of one line.
  .
  
• The letters are considerably condensed in size and spacing (both vertical and horizontal) compared with the rest of the document.
  .
  
• The single parenthesis overlays the letters of a word in the line below.
  .
  
• The inserted phrase is clearly parenthetical in meaning, and is not otherwise essential to the flow of the pre-existing text.

If there is a better explanation for the text-critical evidence, I am certainly willing to consider it.

[William Schryver]

I find it intriguing that, when faced with concrete evidence that there might just be aspects of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers that donâ??t conform to their facile theories, the critics instantly resort to their tried and true arsenal of personal attacks, ridicule, and casual dismissal of every argument advanced from this side of the aisle.

I first proffered these arguments at the end of last year on another message board.  Brent Metcalfe shortly appeared and we had a brief exchange on some points, but the bulk and strength of my arguments went unaddressed.  On 11/28/2007, Metcalfe posted:

Quote

Hi Will,

My apologies for the delayed response ...

I hope to post a few text-critical comments on Abraham 1:12 either tomorrow day or Thursday night.

On 11/30/2007 he posted again:

Quote

Hi Will,

I've prepped photographs that relate to the early textual history of Abraham 1:12 for online display, but helping my son with a school project absorbed the remainder of the evening (read: my rejoinder will be delayed a few more days).

Thanks for your patience.

My best,

</brent>

Then ensued a long period of silence, which I broke several days ago (05/05/2008):

Quote

I wonder why Brent decided to just forget about this discussion?

Is it possible that he was persuaded by my analysis of the interlineal insertion of Abraham 1:12 in KEPA #2?

Probably not. But we never did get to hear his counter-analysis.

Metcalfe promptly appeared and issued the following retort:

Quote

I don't agree with your armchair assessment of the textual history of Abr. 1:12; and I can't imagine that Brian Hauglid (et al.) would concur with your assessment either.

When I questioned whether or not professional credentials were a prerequisite to participating in this discussion (since, of course, Metcalfe himself lacks them), he responded thusly:

Quote

"[E]xtensive credentials"? Well, when you've garnered a few of your own, perhaps we'll have something meaningful to discuss.

Then there ensued, from Metcalfe's gallery of devoted fans, a spirited illustration of how the critics respond when they apparently lack serious counter-arguments: a litany of claims that LDS scholars are incompetent clowns, or shameless liars; that Ashment and Metcalfe are the only true "scholars" of these things, and that every time critics come into contact with apologists on these issues, the apologists invariably turn tail and run, leaving the jubilant critics once again in control of the field.

Right.

And now Metcalfe is claiming that the MAD board has banned him in order to prevent him from responding to these arguments:

Quote

Evidently to prevent me from responding to Brian, I've been banned from the MAD board.  (See here.)

Well, Iâ??ve confirmed that he is not, in fact, banned from the MAD board.  

What we are seeing is a phenomenon that will no doubt repeat itself again and again as scholarship on the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers begins to advance.  Bear in mind, there has been very little scholarship produced so far.  The field is literally in its infancy.  Good grief, the first critical edition of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers hasn't even been published!  And yet we have all these exmormon critics crowing about how everything is already settled!  We are assured that it is an absolutely proven fact that Joseph Smith claimed to â??translateâ? the Book of Abraham from these few surviving fragments of papyri.  We are assured that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers prove this.  And yet almost no one can tell you why.  Few people appreciate the fact that these claims made by the critics appear to be based on very uncertain premises.  And now that there are some people, with apologetic leanings, who are examining these things â?? and raising questions â?? we hear nothing but the old refrain repeated over and over again: itâ??s a done deal already; everythingâ??s already been proven; itâ??s all so obvious; etc., etc., etc.

Well, the fact is that it is not so obvious.  When one begins to examine these documents, question after question begins to arise.  Before I was privileged to actually see KEPA #2 and #3, I was assured that it was a proven fact that these documents were the transcripts of Joseph Smithâ??s original dictation of the text of the Book of Abraham.  In the event, this so-called â??proven factâ? has proven to be anything but.  Oh, I can see why someone might have reached that conclusion at first glance.  But the more you examine the evidence, the more questions occur to you.  Thus this thread.  It makes a simple observation, and asks for a critical response.  How hard can it be?

As I have demonstrated, the text-critical evidence appears to suggest that this important phrase in Abr. 1:12 was added later.  If the critics believe this to not be the case, then I challenge them to present a counter-argument that is sufficient to explain the evidence that has been cited.  Otherwise I think we may be justified in concluding that no such counter-argument currently exists.

Anyone?

[William Schryver]

One critic has observed:

Quote

The problem for the apologists is that Manuscripts 2 and 3 have in their left-hand margin sequential characters from the Hor Book of Breathings that are paired up with discrete units of English text. This makes it quite clear that the English text was thought to be a translation of the Hor Book of Breathings. Abraham 1:12, which places the Hor vignette "at the commencement" of the Abrahamic record, also points to the Breathings text as the BoA's source. The apologists know that if they can establish the existence of a shadowy "Q" document, they can deny that it possessed the same problematic characteristics as the extant ones. They can deny that it had characters in the margin. They can deny that it contained Abraham 1:12. Basically, they can deny that the inspired, first-generation document was in any way connected to the Hor Book of Breathings. They can allege that only in the second-generation documents did Joseph and his scribes mistakenly connect the papyrus to the revelation and attempt to reverse-engineer an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

Of course, the implication here is that the apologists begin with the conclusion, and then work to justify it.  I, for one, vigorously deny such a charge.  I am willing that the evidence speak for itself, regardless of its import.

In any case, the question remains: Is there evidence within KEPA #2 and #3 that suggests that these manuscripts ARE copies of an earlier document?

If the answer is yes, then many other things MAY follow.  But I say letâ??s take the questions one at a time.

For the purposes of this particular thread, I have presented evidence that suggests that Abr. 1:12 in KEPA #2 was, in fact, a later, interlinear addition to the document.

If the critics are not able to rebut that claim, I will cheerfully move on to the next one.  Perhaps we will eventually have accumulated enough evidence to begin drawing the kinds of conclusions to which the critic above alludes.

[Chris Smith]

Hi William,

A few thoughts.  First of all, I think that ideally the pundits forum should be kept free of ad hominems, imputations of dishonesty, and observations on MDB groupthink.  Secondly, I think it would be best to refrain from referring to your assertion vis a vis Abraham 1:12 as an established "fact" until we've heard Brent's case to the contrary.  

William Schryver, on May 15 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

Iâ??m not sure I follow your reasoning here.  The question of this being a later insertion is not, that I can see, dependent on the relationship of this manuscript to any other.

Both manuscripts 2 and 3 contain a variant of this phrase.  By comparing the two manuscripts and understanding them in relationship to each other, we may gain insight into whether this was an immediate insertion, a later insertion made in both manuscripts, a self-correction in oral dictation, or something else entirely.  If the question is whether Abraham 1:12 was the product of revelation or of Joseph and his scribes' own reflection on the text, it probably behooves us to reconstruct the event of its insertion/dictation to the best of our ability before drawing conclusions.

Since it does not appear that your argument or the evidence upon which it is based has changed since we discussed this subject in June and November of last year, I see no reason at present to modify the conclusions I proffered then.  As such, I will merely reiterate my conclusions and await Brent's more learned reply.

In June, I observed that the next line after "commencement of this record" starts a new paragraph that translates a new Egyptian character. Williams' manuscript is sloppy enough that he may just have been trying to conserve space.  The smaller "font size" and the upward tilt also are not necessarily intentional, since these occur frequently on page 1 of the Williams manuscript, especially at the end of paragraphs.  In November I added that I thought you had an exaggerated notion of what is at stake in the debate over this locus, since Abraham 1:12 is far from the only evidence connecting the Book of Breathings to the Book of Abraham.  And I encouraged you to enunciate a consistent methodological principle with respect to whether the normative version of a particular revelation should be the first generation, the final published version, or something else entirely.

But lest you think I am merely one of "Kevin's toadys" or part of "Metcalfe's gallery of devoted fans," I should point out that in November I also wrote that I feel your interpretation of this locus as a later insertion is genuinely plausible.



The flow of the manuscript would not be terribly affected if the phrase in question, which does look like an afterthought, were not present: "...that you might have a knowledge of this altar, it was made after the form of a bedstead..." So it's certainly possible that this phrase was added supralinearly sometime after the dictation of the next section was begun.

Manuscript 3 is a similar situation. Since the phrase in question comes at the bottom of the page, and "it" with a lowercase "i" starts the next page, it's feasible that our phrase was tacked onto the bottom of the page as an afterthought.



But as I remarked in November, even if this phrase is a later insertion, I don't think that it harms the simultaneous dictation theory or demonstrates that the Book of Abraham is independent of the Hor Book of Breathings.

I should add that in November Brent Metcalfe wrote the following:

Quote

Here is the crux of your argument:

Quote

1. The parenthesis preceding "commencement" overwrites the cross of the "t" and the initial ascender of the "h" in the word "the" that appears on the subsequent line "It was after the form of a bedsted." This is satisfactorily apparent when viewing the unmagnified document, but it is much more apparent under magnification.

Obviously, if what you say above is not true, all other premises in your argument take on a decidedly speculativeâ??if not speciousâ??hue.

While aestheticians may bicker over whether a picture really speaks a thousand words, the following two pictures at least say enough to place the viability of your argument in serious doubt.

BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), p. 1

... will refer ...
... (commencement ...
... the form ...


Ink flow detail

Readers will observe that the ink flow of the connecting stroke between the "t" and "h" in "the" is darker precisely at the point where the connecting stroke and the bottom of the curved stroke (Will's mysterious "parenthesis") meet, culminating in a pool at the apex of the "h" ascender. This ink pattern is consistent with fresh ink dragging older ink in the direction of the new stroke. In short, the "h" was written after the curved stroke. (I've personally replicated this ink pattern several times using a quill pen.)

I look forward to hearing more from you, Brian, and Brent on this subject.

Best,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

In reference to your comments regarding ad hominem arguments and imputations of dishonesty, I think it would be appropriate to note that I merely cited those that had occurred over at the Shady Acres Trailer Park.  Nevertheless, I whole-heartedly share your sentiments that the Pundits Forum should be free from such things.

I want to acknowledge your having previously admitted (last November) the plausibility of my argument that we are dealing here with a later interlinear insertion.  I appreciate your willingness to consider the evidence.

As for Metcalfe's previous arguments, which you cite above, you will probably also recall that I immediately replied as follows:

Quote

I could not disagree more. Indeed, the fact that the text of the apparently inserted phrase is considerably condensed (see my item #3 above) is the strongest and most obvious evidence for it being a secondary emendation â?? and there is no relationship between the character size and spacing that signify the emendation and the separate issue of the parenthesis, which merely serves to reinforce the conclusion suggested by the condensed text of the insertion.

Indeed, if there were not already a line written below the inserted emendation, there would have been no reason to condense the letters and spacing of the inserted phrase; nothing would have demarked the space available for the insertion. Simply put, Williams has inserted two lines in the space previously allotted to one line. That space is circumscribed by the line of the next paragraph having been written prior to the insertion having been made.
â?¦
Nevertheless, let us examine your expressed rationale that the parenthesis was written before the subsequent line. Your analysis attempts to explain the pooled ink at the ascender of the word â??theâ? by saying that the ink from the previously-written parenthesis was still wet, and that the scribe writing â??theâ? dragged some of this ink along with the ascender of the â??hâ?.

I find your analysis entirely unpersuasive. In fact, I think the best explanation is just the opposite of what you have suggested. The pool of ink was left by the scribeâ??s pen immediately after he had finished writing the parenthesis, and in the course of his pen moving back up to the remainder of the insertion. Under greater magnification, there is a distinct connection between the termination of the parenthesis and the ink pool above. Also, the terminating bottom curve of the parenthesis can be seen to pass over the ascender of the â??hâ?.

Furthermore, a cursory examination of several instances of â??theâ? in the Williams manuscript shows that the scribe never pauses at the point in question. His movement is consistently back down from the apex of the ascender, leaving not even a hint of an ink pool at the apex. I consider your suggestion that â??ink flowâ? from the course of the â??hâ? ascender is responsible for the pool to be completely nonsensical. An ink pool is caused only by the scribe pausing at the completion of a stroke. The scribe never pauses at that point when writing the word â??theâ?. The ink pool we see is connected to the termination of the parenthesis, not to the transition from ascent to descent in the formation of the â??hâ?.

In any case, this will no doubt be a question that will remain unresolved in the course of our discussion on this message board. We both see the evidence in question, but disagree on the meaning of that evidence. I suppose that is to be expected. So I am willing to leave the issue of the parenthesis to other professionals who will consider the question.

I might inquire as to why you think the scribe would employ a parenthesis at all? Why, if we are dealing with a phrase made in the context of a continuing dictation, would the scribe decide to randomly insert a lone parenthesis in the middle of sentence? Doesnâ??t that strike you as unusual in the least? After all, a parenthesis is always an initial indicator of some kind of inserted comment. Hence the colloquial term, â??a parenthetical comment.â? Why would Williams choose to insert this parenthesis in the middle of his sentence in the course of transcribing a dictation?

You also failed to address item #2 above: â??I will referâ? clearly rises to avoid the top of the parenthesis. How do you explain this if the parenthesis was not written first?

And, finally, how do you explain the fact that Williams has inserted two lines in the space previously allotted for only one?

My counter-arguments were never addressed.  Hopefully they will be in the course of this thread.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Brian,

Welcome back to cyberspace, my friend. As I mentioned in my email message to you, I think that many netizens could benefit from reading a scholarly exchange where the interlocutors frame their analyses with goodwill.

Despite potentially ambiguous elements in Will Schryver's reconstruction of the textual history for Abraham 1:12 in BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2; Frederick G. Williams scribe)â??and in ms. 1b (fldr. 3; Warren Parrish scribe)?â??you're nonetheless convinced that the strings beginning with "I will refer you..." and "(commencement of..." are "later interlinear/sublinear insertion[s]."

I am not convinced.

(I assume that you agree with me that Schryver's transcription of the clause from ms. 1a is inaccurateâ??correct?)

There is only one instance where a glyph comes into contact with the line below: the curved line preceding "commencement" and the h in "the":

BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), p. 1


... will refer ...
   ... ( commencement ...
  ... the form ...

Using your high-powered scope, what have you learned from this intersection of ink?

I look forward to your reply.

Kind regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(�?© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
â??Raymond E. Brown

[Chris Smith]

Brent,

I'm pleased to see you have found your way over here.  

I unfortunately only have access to the microfilm copies of these documents, so perhaps one of you who have images of them can assist me with something.  I suggested above that

Quote

Manuscript 3 is a similar situation. Since the phrase in question comes at the bottom of the page, and "it" with a lowercase "i" starts the next page, it's feasible that our phrase was tacked onto the bottom of the page as an afterthought.

If this phrase was "tacked onto the bottom of the page as an afterthought," we would expect the lower margin of this particular page in Manuscript 3 to be smaller than are the lower margins of the other pages in Manuscript 3.  I cannot, from the microfilm, accurately judge margin sizes.  But I imagine that a quick glance at real photographs or scans of the manuscript would be sufficient to determine whether the three lines at the bottom of this page intrude into Parrish's usual margin or whether, in fact, Parrish usually leaves any margin at all.  Thanks in advance for the help,

-Chris

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Chris,

There is no reason to believe that the clause "I will... this record" is an afterthought emendation in BoAbr ms. 1b (fldr. 3; Warren Parrish scribe). Ms. 1b comprises three leaves. Pages 1â??2 and 3â??4, the only two leaves that fill whole pages recto and verso, terminate at approximately the same place at the bottom of each page. If you delete the clause "I will... this record" from page 2, the discrepancy with page 1 is significant.

My best,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(�?© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
â??Raymond E. Brown

[Chris Smith]

Brent Metcalfe, on May 18 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

Ms. 1b comprises three leaves. Pages 1–2 and 3–4, the only two leaves that fill whole pages recto and verso, terminate at approximately the same place at the bottom of each page. If you delete the clause "I will... this record" from page 2, the discrepancy with page 1 is significant.

Thanks, Brent.  That does seem to suggest that in Manuscript 3, at least, the phrase in question was included at the time of composition.  Which raises for Will and Brian the question of why, if these were both copies of the same Q document (especially exact proof copies, as Will has suggested), Manuscript 3 included the phrase at the time of composition but Manuscript 2 apparently did not.  It also means, however, that if the phrase in Manuscript 2 is demonstrably a later insertion, the oral dictation theory cannot explain it any better than can the dual-copying theory.  That Abraham 1:12 was included in both manuscripts at the time of composition appears to be the most parsimonious explanation from the perspective of both production theories.

Will,

You have argued above that the parenthesis was written before the phrase "I will refer you...".  I can see why you say that; the phrase "I will" jumps upward a bit where the parenthesis occurs, apparently in order to avoid crashing into it.  But if the parenthesis was written first, its placement seems really odd.  Isn't it more likely that the text strays upward because the scribe anticipated having to continue the line interlinearly?  And that the parenthesis was inserted below the upward jump in the phrase "I will" because that's where there was room for it?  Not a major issue, I realize, but your analysis in this respect just doesn't really ring true to me.  

A further suggestion: might the reason for continuing the line interlinearly (as opposed to starting a new line) be that the next margin character had already been written, and Phelps did not want his English text to be out of alignment with the character?  It is very nearly out of alignment as it is:

  

Best,

- Chris

Edited by Chris Smith, 18 May 2008 - 10:04 AM.

[gtaggart]

Brent Metcalfe, on May 18 2008, 12:13 AM, said:

Hi Brian,

Welcome back to cyberspace, my friend. As I mentioned in my email message to you, I think that many netizens could benefit from reading a scholarly exchange where the interlocutors frame their analyses with goodwill.

Speaking (I'm guessing here) for most netizens on this board, what we could most benefit from is having color scans/photos of the KEP of our own to examnie. You've been promising copies of yours all  bound up in a critical text since the Prophet's 200th birthday. What's your deadline now?

I'll pose the same question to Brian and Will (who somehow scored a color copy of the KEP): When do the rest of us tithe paying members (sorry Chris) get to have our own color copies of the KEP?

I don't mean to sound churlish or ungrateful here, but this little game of hide and peeks of the KEP you guys play on this board is becoming a little boring. It doesn't help when you condescend to tell us that we "could benefit from reading [your] scholarly exchange." So we could then pull out our copy of Marquardt's barely readable book to critique your argument?

In short, as interesting as this "scholarly exchange" can be, it becomes less and less interesting as those of us on the sidelines are reminded that we're only observers at worst and at best, participants with both hands tied behind our backs and a patch on one eye.

Edited by gtaggart, 18 May 2008 - 10:37 AM.

[William Schryver]

BM:

Quote

â?¦ I think that many netizens could benefit from reading a scholarly exchange where the interlocutors frame their analyses with goodwill.

I whole-heartedly concur.  I might add only that goodwill is a two-way street.  I, for one, tend to reflect such things back to their source.  Thus, goodwill begets goodwill.  In its absence, I suffer from a somewhat shameful proclivity to become a "bad Will."

Quote

Despite potentially ambiguous elements in Will Schryver's reconstruction â?¦

There is only one instance where a glyph comes into contact with the line below: the curved line preceding "commencement" and the h in "the":

I will be the first to consent that there is uncertainty regarding whether or not the parenthesis comes into contact with the "t".  My images (probably the equivalent of a 200dpi scan) lack the resolution of Brian's (if I recall correctly, they are 1200dpi scans).  And Brian and I have never even discussed his opinion of this particular question, so I don't know if he would agree with my judgment that the bottom of the parenthesis appears to slightly bleed over the top of the cross of the "t".  In any case, I don't see this as particularly significant, since it is obvious that the parenthesis does come into contact with the ascender of the "h".  For purposes of our discussion, I am willing to disregard the question of whether the "t" is also touched by the parenthesis.

Quote

Using your high-powered scope, what have you learned from this intersection of ink?

I don't believe Brian has, as yet, considered this particular question when examining the originals under magnification from the binocular microscope he has used to view other aspects of the documents.  If I understood him correctly, it is something on the agenda for the next trip to the archives.  That said, his high-resolution scans do permit significant digital magnification.  However, I suspect that both the question of whether or not the parenthesis touches the "t" and the question of whether or not it "overlays" the ascender of the "h" is something that will only be definitively confirmed (or disproven) by a document analyst like George Throckmorton.  Contrary to something Chris Smith insinuated in a previous post, I have not characterized my analysis as a "proven fact."  Rather, I simply give it as my judgment that the parenthesis appears to be written over the top of the ascender of the "h" in the word "the" in the line below it.  At this juncture, it appears that Professor Hauglid concurs.  I will anxiously await his judgment after looking at the originals under magnification.  Nevertheless, this is not the only aspect of this phrase that tends to argue for the fact that we are dealing here with a later, interlinear insertion.  If the parenthesis did not come into contact at all with the line below it, I would still maintain that the evidence argues for this phrase being a later, interlinear insertion.

Indeed, I have presented other arguments that support this conclusion:

• Two lines of text are squeezed into the space of one line.
  .
  
• The individual letters and words are considerably condensed in size and spacing compared with the surrounding text.
  .
  
• The phrase "I will refer â?¦" appears to necessarily rise to avoid the parenthesis â?? suggesting that the parenthesis was already there before the scribe commenced to write "I will refer â?¦". (See below.)

Your reply to these observations will be very much welcomed, by me as well as the other "netizens" who are following this discussion.

Now, I perceive that perhaps you are giving us some hint as to your counter-explanation for this apparent insertion.  You seem to deliberately refer to the parenthesis as a "curved line."  Does this imply that you don't believe this is really a parenthesis?  And if not, I am certainly interested in what you think it is, and why the scribe would have made this mark at this point.
.
.
.
CS:

Quote

That does seem to suggest that in Manuscript 3, at least, the phrase in question was included at the time of composition. Which raises for Will and Brian the question of why, if these were both copies of the same Q document â?¦

Chris, I don't want to talk about Ms. #3 in this particular thread; I want to keep our focus on the question at hand.  However, I did want to comment briefly on your statement above.  First, I'm not aware of Professor Hauglid's specific beliefs in terms of the hypothetical Ms. Q.  And, I do not believe I have ever specifically said that I believe Mss. #2 and #3 are necessarily copies of the same Ms. Q.  That's probably a logical assumption, but it is not one to which I am committed at this point.  

Quote

â?¦ (especially exact proof copies, as Will has suggested) â?¦

Likewise, although I have presented this idea as a possibility I have entertained, it certainly does not rise to the level of a conclusion I have reached nor one to which I am committed at this point.  In my view, it would be more or less impossible, absent the discovery of additional manuscripts, to ever ascertain what constituted the exemplar for these copies.  If there is compelling evidence suggesting that these are copies, then I consider it sufficient to simply recognize them as such.  It is not necessary to specify that they were copies from one or more earlier documents.  If they are visual copies â?? even in part, then they obviously cannot be (as has been suggested) the transcripts of the original oral dictation of the "translation" of the Book of Abraham.  They must be something else.  The scientific method, as you know, is a process of eliminating hypotheses in order to attain to a knowledge of truth.  In testing the hypothesis that these two documents are transcripts of an oral dictation, I have identified several pieces of evidence that seem to argue for a rejection of that theory -- even at the expense of other pieces of evidence that seem to argue in its favor.

In any event, let us -- for now -- keep the focus of this thread on the question of Abr. 1:12 in KEPA 2.

Edited by William Schryver, 18 May 2008 - 11:09 AM.