Textual Variants At Abraham 1:12

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Chris,

You're correct, Will's so-called "extra loop" is simply a portion of Frederick G. Williams' initial a (indeed, if an "extra loop" typified Williams' medial c's you would expect the appearance of four c's in words with two consecutive c's). Williams' spelling reccord(s) (two medial c's) appears in multiple documents that he penned.

Best regards,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[William Schryver]

CS:

I'm pretty sure your "extra loop" in "accordingly" is part of the "a". It doesn't look like an extra "c" to me at all.

Now itâ??s your turn to have misunderstood me. I was quite deliberate when I said:

â?¦ the examples of â??accordingâ? and â??accordinglyâ? almost appear to have three â??câ?s in a row.

I probably would have been better served to not even make mention of the examples of â??accordingâ? and â??accordinglyâ?.

The â??extra loopâ? to which I referred is what I see in the examples of â??recordâ? and â??recordsâ?.

I donâ??t believe that the little loops I have highlighted in these examples are actually second instances of â??câ?. I believe this just happens to be an idiosyncrasy of Williamsâ?? handwriting.

Here are some examples I have identified where Williams has demonstrated this occasional tendency to make a loop at the end of his "c":

.

.

.

The real question is why Metcalfe is still hiding behind these repeated transcription nit-pickings instead of getting on to the business at hand: What is his explanation of the insertion? We have spent page after page watching him studiously avoid giving an answer. Oh, he has repeatedly promised us that an answer will be forthcoming:

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.

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.

I'll post a few comments tomorrow â?¦

Time permitting I'll post a few initial thoughts on the pericope later tonight or tomorrow night.

And yet, after all this time, we have yet to see an explanation forthcoming from him!

Why the interminable delays and apparent obfuscation? It has strange undertones of the promises of a forthcoming McClellin Collection.

.

.

.

Edit: added examples of "c" loops not found in "record"

[Chris Smith]

And yet, after all this time, we have yet to see an explanation forthcoming from him!

Nor from you, for that matter. Oh, you've made quite clear that you think this is a later insertion. But in terms of explaining it within the context of a coherent manuscript production theory, you've thus far dodged the bullet.

[William Schryver]

Nor from you, for that matter. Oh, you've made quite clear that you think this is a later insertion. But in terms of explaining it within the context of a coherent manuscript production theory, you've thus far dodged the bullet.

What does a "coherent manuscript production theory" have to do with our discussion of Abr. 1:12?

And since when is anyone obligated to produce a "coherent manuscript production theory"? Is not the hallmark of the scientific process the disproving of hypotheses?

Nevertheless, I am developing something that approaches a "coherent manuscript production theory." But, for now, I think it is more profitable for us to discuss details rather than generalities. I have presented what I consider to be persuasive evidence that this phrase in Ms. #2 is a secondary insertion; that it was inserted after the scribe had written the text below it. You have given us what you believe is a good counter-explanation. Metcalfe has been promising us such an explanation, but has repeatedly -- and deliberately, it would seem -- avoided actually producing it. Why is that? Inquiring minds want to know.

By the way, I added a little to my post above that you might want to check out.

[Chris Smith]

What does a "coherent manuscript production theory" have to do with our discussion of Abr. 1:12?

And since when is anyone obligated to produce a "coherent manuscript production theory"? Is not the hallmark of the scientific process the disproving of hypotheses?

Nevertheless, I am developing something that approaches a "coherent manuscript production theory." But, for now, I think it is more profitable for us to discuss details rather than generalities. I have presented what I consider to be persuasive evidence that this phrase in Ms. #2 is a secondary insertion; that it was inserted after the scribe had written the text below it. You have given us what you believe is a good counter-explanation. Metcalfe has been promising us such an explanation, but has repeatedly -- and deliberately, it would seem -- avoided actually producing it. Why is that? Inquiring minds want to know.

Will,

Brent has made it clear that he thinks the phrase was inserted at the time of the manuscript's production, and prior to the writing of the next line. How is this any less of an "explanation" than your highly ambiguous insistence that it occurred "later"?

IMO, "coherent manuscript production theories" have a great deal to do with our discussion of Abr. 1:12. We have here two documents that contain a similar but not identical emendation. There is enough similarity between the emendations in the two manuscripts that there must be some relationship between them. So if we hope to understand how, why, and when this insertion occurred in Manuscript 2, we cannot ignore Manuscript 3 or our broader production theories.

As for the scientific process, you made a similar comment on page 1. On page 2 I posted the following, which I think you might want to revisit:

I think you have made two methodological errors here.

1) You have oversimplified the concept of falsification.

I agree that falsificationism is a helpful way to characterize the scientific process, and that in fact it is more helpful in most cases than is verificationism (a.k.a. positivism). But as some postmodern thinkers have pointed out, even falsificationism can be a sort of positivism. If postmodern epistemology has taught us anything, it is that we cannot conceive of things in binary categories like falsified/not falsified or verified/not verified. More useful, perhaps, is probabilistic logic. In reasoning probabilistically, we place a variety of competing models on a spectrum between falsified and verified, depending upon how accurately they explain and predict empirical data.

2) You are attempting to divorce the part from the whole.

Have you ever heard of the hermeneutical spiral? I believe it was first proposed by the German philosopher/theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher. According to Schleiermacher, an interpreter can understand a text only by considering part and whole in light of each other. In interpreting literary texts, this means we clarify the text's broader meaning by philological study of particular words and grammatical constructions, while simultaneously clarifying the meaning of particular words and grammatical constructions by interpreting them in light of the message of the larger text. In other words, the part and the whole of the text must be constantly held in tension and constantly studied alongside each other. Each time we move from the global to the local and vice versa, we gain a deeper understanding of both. Here is a helpful depiction of this concept:

In the present situation, what this means is that our "macro" theory of how the KEPA documents were produced can inform our "micro" explanation for this particular locus, and vice versa. It would be a mistake to divorce one from the other.

-Chris

[William Schryver]

CS:

In the present situation, what this means is that our "macro" theory of how the KEPA documents were produced can inform our "micro" explanation for this particular locus, and vice versa. It would be a mistake to divorce one from the other.

I mostly agree with you.

However, Iâ??m not ready at this point to launch into a discussion of my macro theory of these documents. Our discussion of the various â??microâ? aspects of the manuscripts may cause my â??macroâ? theory to evolve as we proceed.

Brent has made it clear that he thinks the phrase was inserted at the time of the manuscript's production, and prior to the writing of the next line.

Has he? I must have missed where he made this â??clear.â?

And if he has already, as you suggest, made his views clear, why does he keep promising that he is about to do so?

[Brian Hauglid]

Brent,

â??On line 1.38 (your line 37b, Brian's line 38), "record" should be "reccord" (two c's, not one

You're quite right. There should be two "c"s in the Abr. 1:12 transcription. Thanks for catching that. I do have "record" transcribed as "reccord" in other parts of the ms (ex. sheet 2 verso line 6) so that created a glaring inconsistency. One can certainly see from this the importance of having other trained eyes go through the transcriptions. I'm confident that in due time the verifiers would have caught the inconsistency at Abr. 1:12 but your immediate help is much appreciated.

On the topic of Will (again ): Will started the thread. Will answered your questions. Will has provided his own analyses and conclusions. I don't agree with every point in Will's answers to your questions nor to all of his arguments and conclusions. But my specific agreements or disagreements with Will should not have any bearing on your (able) analysis of Abr. 1:12, which you have been (repeatedly) asked to provide in response to Will's opening post.

Therefore, when you've concluded your discussion with Will, I'll be happy to have a direct unencumbered discussion with you.

Best to you,

Brian

[William Schryver]

BH:

Will has provided his own analyses and conclusions. I don't agree with every point in Will's answers to your questions nor to all of his arguments and conclusions.

WHAT??!!??

I thought you were feeding me everything! Or â?¦ wait. Maybe it was that Iâ??ve been feeding you everything? No. It was that you are relying on my appraisal of things. And that one cannot tell where one of us ends and the other begins.

And yet we disagree on at least two things so far: my reconstruction of the textual history of Abr. 1:12 (arguing for a parenthesis instead of a â??continuedâ? indicator), and now my conclusion (albeit lightly-held) that Williams is not really misspelling â??recordâ?.

How can that be?

[Chris Smith]

How can that be?

Don't worry; we critics won't let the dissonance get to us. There is really no level of evidence that would be satisfactory to disconfirm my testimony that you are, in fact, a Brian Hauglid pariah. There may be differences between your and Brian's written comments, but your comments, I'm sure, reflect Brian's true feelings about this locus.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your reply.

Your reluctance to chat with me about the BoAbr manuscripts is disappointing.

I entered this thread in the hope of engaging you in an irenic, scholarly exchange on the manuscript variants for Abraham 1:12. My time is limited. I'm a single parent with numerous professional commitments and a very active 12-year-old son. I have little interest in protracted niggling over the rudiments of Frederick G. Williams' handwriting with folks whose exposure to the documentary evidence is negligible. That you see this as a prerequisite to your discussing the BoAbr manuscripts with me is puzzling, even unfortunate.

I wish you the best with your publication, my friend.

Regards,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[PacMan]

Brent,

In case you were unaware, there are a great number of us lurkers interested in a discussion of something. I find the notion of only playing the game if it is played by one's own rules...elementary. While many can appreciate your time constraints, let us be honest that whether you (or I) decide to post here, there, or anywhere, or make such posts substantive or a fleeting promulgation of one's own distaste for one thing or another, it all takes time...and you've decided how to use it. Playing the victim to Father Time engenders few sympathies. (Although, do continue to take care of that boy of yours...that's what's really important!)

Unfortunately, the only thing I've come away with from this lengthy but substantively sparse "discussion" is wondering if the phrase "bombastic certitude" applies to those conclusions which you are confident are wrong, but later dismissed as "protracted niggling" when realized they are not!

Whatever...big deal. Just realize that your years of study have broader value than some 'dispositive' opinion. As my math teacher in High School often said, "It's not so important what your answer is, as long as you show how you got there."

Take a chance--what don't you know? What did (dare I say) Will get right?

Best,

PacMan

P.S. Not to mention I strain to understand how you "hope for a scholarly exchange of the manuscript variants for Abraham 1:12," but refuse to engage Will's original post (which oddly enough references Abraham 1:12). Moreover, how can one complain that another wants first to discuss the BoAbr manuscript as a prerequisite for...discussing the BoAbr manuscript? You're not making any sense. Talk about niggling...

[juliann]

Ditto, PacMan.

[William Schryver]

I commenced this thread three weeks ago with the intention of discussing the anomalous nature of an important part of the text of the Book of Abraham as attested in two early manuscripts. This particular portion of the text has been used to deleterious effect by critics of the church. How? Well, that requires a little explanation and an understanding of the relationships between the â??lion couchâ? vignette known as Facsimile 1, the Egyptian text (the so-called Book of Breathings) which originally followed this illustration on the scroll of Hor, and the fact that successive characters from the Book of Breathings appear in the left margin of both of these early manuscriptions of the Book of Abraham.

The critical argument takes two angles: 1 - the text of Abr. 1:12 is evidence of anachronism, since the so-called â??lion couchâ? vignette dates to the Roman era in Egypt. And 2 - the text of the Book of Abraham self-references to the Book of Breathings as being its "source document."

Stephen E. Thompson explains:

What then are the anachronisms which I believe can be identified in the Book of Abraham? First, the association of Facsimile 1 with the Book of Abraham cannot derive from Abraham, since Facsimile 1 dates to approximately 100 B.C. There are passages in the Book of Abraham which are attributed to Abraham and which refer to Facsimile 1 (Abr. 1:12, 14). The most straightforward reading of these passages indicates that Abraham himself was responsible for the association of Facsimile 1 with his own attempted sacrifice. The book opens with Abraham speaking in the first person (v. 1), and there is no reason to think that the â??Iâ? in verse 12, where we read, â??I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record,â? refers to anyone but Abraham.

Stephen E. Thompson, Egyptology and the Book of Abraham, Dialogue, Volume 28, Number 1, Spring 1995, p. 154

The question is whether or not this phrase from verse 12 is actually from the original text of the document. To my knowledge, Kevin Barney was the first to suggest the possibility that it was not:

â?¦ I believe it likely that the Book of Abraham did undergo a textual transmission in antiquity. As a concrete example, I would read the back references to Facsimile 1 at Abraham 1:12b and 14 as glosses that would have been added to the text only at the time it was first appended to a scroll containing a Book of Breathings, if in fact that is what happened. Thompson is unwilling to allow this possibility, because in his view the pronoun "I" in verse 12 ("I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of the record") must have been written by Abraham. This insistence on Thompson's part is naive at best; certainly anyone familiar with critical scholarship regarding biblical redaction would not doubt the willingness of a scribe to make such a clarification in words as if from the perspective of an ancient prophet. Deleting these back references not only would do no harm to the flow and sense of the text, it would actually improve them.

Kevin L. Barney, The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources,

from Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, eds. Gee and Hauglid, 2005, pp. 123-124

Barney, of course, is suggesting that we are dealing with a redaction that dates to Roman Egypt â?? certainly a plausible suggestion, but one that really was not based in tangible evidence at the time he made it. However, when Barney wrote his paper, he had not been privileged to view these early BoA manuscripts. Given that opportunity, I suspect that he no longer would suggest this was a 2000-year-old redaction, but rather one which dates to the mid-1830s in Kirtland, Ohio. The earliest manuscript, in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, clearly attests that the phrase â??I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this recordâ? was a later addition to the original text.

The critics on this thread have disputed this conclusion, despite the fact that we have adduced many compelling evidences to support it â?? not the least of which is the ability of the unbiased naked eye to perceive the obvious.

For several months now, I have argued that there was possible proof of the fact that this phrase was added later: the fact that the parenthesis preceding â??commencementâ? appears to overwrite a portion of a word in the line below it. Metcalfe has argued contra this conclusion:

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.)

Brent Metcalfe, Mormon Discussions Board, 11/20/07 12:52am, see here.

With all due respect to Mr. Metcalfe and his quill pen, his analysis and conclusions are incorrect. Indeed, I have been authorized to report that it has been recently confirmed, via microscopic analysis, and to a high level of confidence, that the parenthesis in fact overwrites the ascender of the â??hâ? in the word â??theâ?. The ink flow is, indeed, upward. But the ink comes from a scribal pause at the termination of the stroke of the parenthesis, not from the ascender of the â??hâ? crossing over some imagined wet pool of ink left from a previously-written parenthesis.

Again, recent microscopic analysis confirms with a high level of confidence that this parenthesis overwrites part of a word in the line below.

It would seem then, that the question about whether or not this phrase is a later insertion has been answered via empirical means and no longer need be subject to personal interpretation.

The import of the conclusion that this phrase is a later redaction is that Thompsonâ??s arguments of anachronism are rendered moot. In addition, it would appear that it can no longer be suggested that the text of the Book of Abraham self-references to the so-called â??Book of Breathings.â?

.

.

.

Now, I want to briefly comment on something Mr. Metcalfe wrote in his most recent post:

I have little interest in protracted niggling over the rudiments of Frederick G. Williams' handwriting with folks whose exposure to the documentary evidence is negligible.

Of course, our readers can best judge (between bouts of uncontrollable laughter, no doubt) who has been â??nigglingâ? over unimportant details during the course of this thread, but I think that it is worth noting that (and make no mistake, I am the â??folksâ? to whom Mr. Metcalfe refers) I am, to my knowledge, one of fewer than a dozen people in the world at the present time who has unfettered access to high-quality images of these manuscripts (KEPA Mss. #2 and #3). One must wonder with whom Mr. Metcalfe might have interest in â??protracted nigglingâ?? That he has had 25+ years to examine his precious photos of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is certainly to his distinct advantage. I have only invested a little less than two years in my own studies; Brian Hauglid and others marginally longer. One wonders at what point â??exposure to the documentary evidenceâ? rises from â??negligibleâ? to some level higher on the Metcalfe scale?

I would also like to note, for the record, that to this point I have been responsible for the identification of at least two significant text critical elements in Williamsâ?? Ms. #2:

• I was the one who made the initial observation that the â??parenthesisâ? appeared to overwrite the word in the line below it. The significance of that finding has been explained above.
  
  
  .
  
  
• I was the one who identified the homoioteleuton ("Haran") that demarks the large dittograph on page 4 of this same manuscript, thus establishing it as a definitive evidence of visual copying, rather than simultaneous dictation.
  
  

Whether or not these two examples of the results of my brief studies of the documents qualify me as an â??expertâ? is not the issue. I have never pretended to be more than an â??amateur.â? However, despite my acknowledged lack of â??professional credentials,â? my dedication to study coupled with my unique access to high-quality images has produced very tangible results.

Am I as skilled at this point in time as Mr. Metcalfe in terms of creating professional-quality diplomatic transcriptions? Not by any means. We all acknowledge the strides Metcalfe has made in that respect. He has established the fact that he can produce a high quality, if not always perfect, transcription.

However, the question in which most people are interested is whether or not Mr. Metcalfe can add high-quality text-critical analysis to his demonstrated skill at transcription?

So far, we have been largely unable to assess the quality of his analysis, except to be able to now disprove it in terms of his â??ink flowâ? arguments I cite above. Metcalfe has worked hard to cultivate an image and reputation of a quasi-professional text critic. But on what is this â??reputationâ? based?

• Is he â??professionally-trainedâ? in any respect when it comes to textual criticism?
  No.
  
  
  .
  
  
• Is he â??professionally-trainedâ? in any field where the study of paleography or textual stemmatics is potentially related?
  No.
  
  
  .
  
  
• Is he trained as a forensic document analyst? An historian? An Egyptologist?
  No, no, and no.
  
  
  .
  
  
• Has he ever published an article concerning textual criticism?
  Not to my knowledge.
  
  
  .
  
  
• Has he ever published an article wherein his text critical skills have been displayed and subject to the assessment of others?
  Not to my knowledge.
  
  
  .
  
  
• Does he possess
  any
  credentials that exceed my own modest acquirements when it comes to examining and commenting on these controversial Mormon historical documents?
  Not to my knowledge.
  
  
  .
  
  
• Other than having possessed images of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers for a considerably longer period of time than the other people who currently have access to such images, does Mr. Metcalfe exhibit any greater advantage, skills, or qualifications to speak to these issues?
  In my judgment, no.
  
  

Our readers then must judge the real motivations behind Mr. Metcalfeâ??s expressed reluctance to engage in any discussion â?? irenic or otherwise â?? with this lowly sciolist.

I conclude with the confident prediction that scholars and students of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers will accept as undisputed facts the secondary insertion at Abraham 1:12 and the obvious example of visual dittography at Abraham 2:3 â?? 5 long after the untenable theory of simultaneous dictation and the artificially-inflated reputation of its foremost proponent have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Will,

Three questions:

1) What did Brian see under his microscope that led him to believe that the parenthesis overwrites the "h"?

2) You are evidently hypothesizing that it was JS who added Abr. 1:12, whereas Barney blamed both it and Abr. 1:14 on a Semitic redactor. How do you deal with Abr. 1:14? Do you see any evidence that it, too, could be a secondary emendation made by JS? Or do you think that Smith and some ancient redactor just happened to make very similar emendations? Do you consider the association between facsimile 1 and the Book of Abraham to be strictly modern in origin, or does it originate with an ancient writer?

3) What do you think is the relationship between the margin characters and the BoA text?

Thanks,

-Chris

[cksalmon]

One must wonder with whom Mr. Metcalfe might have interest in â??protracted nigglingâ??

Brian Hauglid.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi PacMan,

For bombastic certitude, I refer you to Exhibit A.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Brian,

Thank you for taking time to inspect the intersection of the curved mark on BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), 1.38 with the connecting upstroke for the "h" in "the" on line 1.39. Your insights are invaluable.

Before we give Will's victory dance a rousing ovation, I'd like to know a little more about your discovery. A concise overview of your methodology for assessing the ink intersection would help immenselyâ??four or five bullet points should suffice.

I look forward to your reply.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[PacMan]

For bombastic certitude, I refer you to Exhibit A.

Ah...but my own bombastic certitude anent my gender no more begs questions of my manhood than another's fickle doubt! The truth remains untouched.

P.S. You can't call a bluff unless you show your cards! Your deal...

PacMan

[William Schryver]

Chris (Smith):

Hi Will,

Three questions:

1) What did Brian see under his microscope that led him to believe that the parenthesis overwrites the "h"?

2) You are evidently hypothesizing that it was JS who added Abr. 1:12, whereas Barney blamed both it and Abr. 1:14 on a Semitic redactor. How do you deal with Abr. 1:14? Do you see any evidence that it, too, could be a secondary emendation made by JS? Or do you think that Smith and some ancient redactor just happened to make very similar emendations? Do you consider the association between facsimile 1 and the Book of Abraham to be strictly modern in origin, or does it originate with an ancient writer?

3) What do you think is the relationship between the margin characters and the BoA text?

Thanks,

-Chris

Professor Hauglid will no doubt choose the time, place, and manner of his elucidation of the methodology involved and the conclusions reached. Note that I carefully employed the phrase â??high level of confidence.â? From what I know so far, â??conclusiveâ? is not the term that should be used to describe what those who examined the original document saw under the microscope. And I believe it is reasonable to expect that further, more conclusive tests will ultimately be applied to the question. Nevertheless, it would seem that the hypothesis of the â??parenthesisâ? overwriting the â??hâ? has considerably stronger basis today than it did a week ago.

As to your other two questions, I think they are very pertinent inquiries and very well articulated. I have, in fact, given every aspect of those questions a significant amount of thought. I have formulated hypotheses for those questions and I have been anxiously involved in attempting to integrate those possible answers with a larger model to at least partially explain these two manuscripts.

That said, I am not going to make the same mistake that others have made in announcing a hypothesis prematurely. And, I am going to be very conservative in my personal approach to articulating my own â??unified theoryâ? of the nature, origins, and relationship of these two particular documents. To do so, I intend to examine several more of the â??microâ? issues in as much detail as possible â?? even those we have discussed previously. I donâ??t think we have plumbed the depths of some of those questions yet.

.

.

.

Chris (Salmon):

Brian Hauglid

At the tempting risk of exceeding my own lowly standards of vulgarity, I will restrainedly note that if you think Professor Hauglid is interested in â??protracted nigglingâ? about anything, youâ??re entertaining a delusion unworthy of your otherwise prodigious intellect.

.

.

.

Metcalfe:

For bombastic certitude, I refer you to â?¦

My mother phoned today to remind me to

eat more beans and vegetables. Why she

thought it so important that she found it necessary to

call not once, but three times to deliver

a motherly lecture on nutrition and the virtues of

legumes is something about which I

fear I may never reach a satisfactory conclusion

either way.

I think that in response to her

serious concern, well â?¦

Before I choose to respond to her expressions

of anxiety

regarding my diet, and

in deference to her creeping state of

near senility, I think I will

give it some thought before I call her back.

[Danite3459]

Very Interesting discussion.

Thank you to Will and others for your insights.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Brian,

I hope it's not too much to ask that you speak for yourself on your analysis. As I read Will's increasingly squishy telling of your discovery, I can't help but think that readers would benefit considerably from a concise overview of your methodology (as I requested in my previous post).

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Brian Hauglid]

Brent,

Although two of us examined the ink issue with a binocular microscope and concurred that the ink of the curved mark is likely on top of the ink in the upper portion of the "h," we are still planning on having it (and many other issues) put to more rigorous testing using different techniques and equipment. After a more thorough analysis has taken place (please allow sufficient time) I will provide a concise overview of this particular finding.

Cheers,

Brian

[Brian Hauglid]

Will,

Since you started this thread it has become increasingly apparent that Brent does not respect you enough to deal directly with you. Therefore, this thread is fast approaching its end.

Perhaps it would be helpful for all if you do one last post that briefly summarizes the issue and provides (as best as can be determined) a dispassionate review of the cogent arguments on both sides of the Abr. 1:12 question.

This would need to be as fair a representation of both sides as possible, without drawing conclusions for or against one side or the other. Let the reader decide.

I think this would provide some closure to the thread. Also, the summary could be a useful point from which we may possibly pick up the discussion later.

Best,

Brian

[William Schryver]

BH:

Since you started this thread it has become increasingly apparent that Brent does not respect you enough to deal directly with you.

Alas, I get the same shoddy treatment from my daughters. Whatâ??s a guy to do? Eat worms? (Which reminds me â?? does anyone watch Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmerman on the Travel Channel? Itâ??s become a favorite show for me and my wife. Mmmmm â?¦ worms!)

At any rate, Iâ??m quite jaded to it by now (the disrespect, not the worms). Although I have reduced my copy of I'm Ok, You're Ok to a dog-eared, highlighted shambles.

Maybe Iâ??ll get really bold and advance to Kevin Grahamâ??s new tome, Iâ??m OK, Youâ??re an Idiot. Perhaps then Iâ??ll come to understand just why it is nobody likes me. Well, except the horses, that is. Of course, without me theyâ??d starve to death, so I suppose itâ??s not a truly fair test of their devotion.

Therefore, this thread is fast approaching its end.

A crash landing it would seem. It was certainly commenced with high hopes â?¦

Encumbered forever by desire and ambition

Thereâ??s a hunger still unsatisfied

Our weary eyes still stray to the horizon

Though down this road weâ??ve been so many times

(for more, click

here.

)

I do regret not being able to advance the discussion to the relationship between Ms. #2 and Ms. #3 at this important locus. My apparently uncontrollable penchant for â??nigglingâ? must have proved our undoing. Either that or my bad acrostic.

Perhaps it would be helpful for all if you do one last post that briefly summarizes the issue and provides (as best as can be determined) a dispassionate review of the cogent arguments on both sides of the Abr. 1:12 question.

This would need to be as fair a representation of both sides as possible, without drawing conclusions for or against one side or the other. Let the reader decide.

I think this would provide some closure to the thread. Also, the summary could be a useful point from which we may possibly pick up the discussion later.

Now, if we want to issue a â??final statementâ? post, I think it would be appropriate to follow the standard debating format where the â??affirmativeâ? side (i.e. the original poster) is permitted the final word. Either that, or you can count my most recent long post (otherwise known as Exhibit A) as my â??summary postâ? and Chris (or whoever else is so inclined) can give his or her final thoughts and we can simply move on to the next topic on my agenda: the â??gods of the landâ? dittograph! (Or, lest I break my bombastic certitude meter, letâ??s call it the apparent â??gods of the landâ? dittograph.)

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Brian,

I appreciate your response.

Before this thread is closed I'm hoping that you can provide clarification. Will recounted your discovery this way:

With all due respect to Mr. Metcalfe and his quill pen, his analysis and conclusions are incorrect. Indeed, I have been authorized to report that it has been recently confirmed, via microscopic analysis, and to a high level of confidence, that the parenthesis in fact overwrites the ascender of the â??hâ? in the word â??theâ?. The ink flow is, indeed, upward. But the ink comes from a scribal pause at the termination of the stroke of the parenthesis, not from the ascender of the â??hâ? crossing over some imagined wet pool of ink left from a previously-written parenthesis.

Again, recent microscopic analysis confirms with a high level of confidence that this parenthesis overwrites part of a word in the line below.

The portion in bold dark red is what interests me most since your response to my inquiry lacks Will's specificity:

Although two of us examined the ink issue with a binocular microscope and concurred that the ink of the curved mark is likely on top of the ink in the upper portion of the "h," we are still planning on having it (and many other issues) put to more rigorous testing using different techniques and equipment. After a more thorough analysis has taken place (please allow sufficient time) I will provide a concise overview of this particular finding.

Again, Will claims that you (and your anonymous analyst) determined with a "high level of confidence" that the upward ink flow is an artifact of the "scribal pause at the termination of the stroke of the parenthesis, not from the ascender of the â??hâ? crossing over some imagined wet pool of ink left from a previously-written parenthesis."

Is Will's representation of your analysis accurate?

Kind regards,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(