186 replies to this topic

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Brian,

To reiterate my request,

Brent Metcalfe, on Jun 15 2008, 10:44 PM, said:

I've posted dozensâ??perhaps hundredsâ??of images supporting my text-critical analyses of the BoAbr manuscripts. If memory serves, you haven't posted a single image to buttress your analyses. So, it's your turn, Brian...

Please post an unaltered image from your highest-resolution color scans of the portion from BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2) that I've highlighted in this image:

The portion of the manuscript that I've highlighted measures ~1/8 square inch on the original. I trust that you can accommodate this meager request.

Have I asked too much?

Given my willingness to post numerous photographs to sustain my arguments, I'd hope that you could at least post one scanned imageâ??measuring ~1/2 the size of a US dime on the original manuscript.

If you plan on addressing the issue at your 2008 FAIR presentation, let us knowâ??I look forward to considering your evidence.

Best 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

[stn9]

Brian Hauglid, on May 18 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

...The JS Papers Project goes well beyond Jessee, Ehat, and others....

The Joseph Smith Papers Project, while covering Jessee's work, will not address areas of research that Ehat and others have, at least not initially (there may be supplementary volumes that will). The Papers Project will not cover all of Joseph's teachings, only those which are part of his documentary collection. So, for instance, the accounts of the Prophet's sermons recorded by Wilford Woodruff, William Clayton, Howard Coray, Franklin, Levi and Willard Richards, etc., will not be included (unless they appear in Joseph Smith's diary or some other Joseph Smith owned or generated document). Descriptions of Joseph Smith's character and incidents from his life--stories of rescuing children from mud or his transfigured appearance while receiving a revelation--the type of devotional material that say Truman Madsen or Susan Easton Black or Mark McConkie have put together--will not appear in the Papers volumes (unless in snippets here and there in footnotes or introductory material for context or some other historical interest). The size of the Papers Project goes beyond anything anyone has undertaken, but the Project will not produce "The Everything Joseph Definitive Ultimate Collection."

[William Schryver]

This thread has been dormant for quite awhile now, but in the meantime research has continued on the last question considered â?? that of the parenthesis in the insertion having been written after the line below.

Metcalfe has argued against that assertion, even going so far as to claim he has replicated, with his own quill pen, the exact scenario we see at this locus.  Assuming my understanding of his arguments is correct, he argues that the upstroke of the â??hâ? gathered undried ink from the just-barely-written â??parenthesisâ? (I believe he considers it an editorial symbol) and thereby created the pool of ink seen above the â??hâ?.

At the time (June 2008) Dr. Hauglid, after examining the original document under high magnification, concurred with my analysis: the â??(â?? was written over the top of the â??hâ? in the line below.

Since then, the documents have been examined utilizing several other imaging methods, including ultra-violet, multi-spectral, and x-ray fluorescent.  

I will not report on the conclusions consequent to this additional scientific testing, but I would like to expand upon my earlier argument that the â??(â?? was clearly written over the top of the â??hâ?, and I will draw upon some high magnification images to prove the point.

When the scribe wrote the â??(â??, excess ink was pressed into the borders of the bold line at its bottom, creating almost a ridge of ink surrounding the pen stroke.  I have outlined the ridge of which I speak in the following image:



Now viewed without the highlighting (and, incidentally, this image has not been edited in any fashion, with the exception of being magnified â?? this is the raw image of the locus in the document) it can be easily seen that the ascender of the â??hâ? did not disturb this outlining ridge at all, as one would expect it to have done were the â??hâ? written after the â??(â??.  Rather, at this level of magnification, it is quite obvious that the â??(â?? was written after the â??hâ?.  Also, the pool of ink seen at the top of the â??hâ? manifests the same properties, and it likewise is undisturbed by the â??hâ?; it clearly is over the ascender of the â??hâ?, having been written afterwards.



I will leave it to our readers to refer to earlier posts on this thread in order to appreciate the significance of this finding and its meaning within the larger context of the discussion.

[David Bokovoy]

William Schryver, on Mar 22 2009, 03:13 PM, said:

This thread has been dormant for quite awhile now, but in the meantime research has continued on the last question considered â?? that of the parenthesis in the insertion having been written after the line below.

Metcalfe has argued against that assertion, even going so far as to claim he has replicated, with his own quill pen, the exact scenario we see at this locus.  Assuming my understanding of his arguments is correct, he argues that the upstroke of the â??hâ? gathered undried ink from the just-barely-written â??parenthesisâ? (I believe he considers it an editorial symbol) and thereby created the pool of ink seen above the â??hâ?.

At the time (June 2008) Dr. Hauglid, after examining the original document under high magnification, concurred with my analysis: the â??(â?? was written over the top of the â??hâ? in the line below.

Since then, the documents have been examined utilizing several other imaging methods, including ultra-violet, multi-spectral, and x-ray fluorescent.  

I will not report on the conclusions consequent to this additional scientific testing, but I would like to expand upon my earlier argument that the â??(â?? was clearly written over the top of the â??hâ?, and I will draw upon some high magnification images to prove the point.

When the scribe wrote the â??(â??, excess ink was pressed into the borders of the bold line at its bottom, creating almost a ridge of ink surrounding the pen stroke.  I have outlined the ridge of which I speak in the following image:



Now viewed without the highlighting (and, incidentally, this image has not been edited in any fashion, with the exception of being magnified â?? this is the raw image of the locus in the document) it can be easily seen that the ascender of the â??hâ? did not disturb this outlining ridge at all, as one would expect it to have done were the â??hâ? written after the â??(â??.  Rather, at this level of magnification, it is quite obvious that the â??(â?? was written after the â??hâ?.  Also, the pool of ink seen at the top of the â??hâ? manifests the same properties, and it likewise is undisturbed by the â??hâ?; it clearly is over the ascender of the â??hâ?, having been written afterwards.



I will leave it to our readers to refer to earlier posts on this thread in order to appreciate the significance of this finding and its meaning within the larger context of the discussion.

Thanks, Will.  Given my new found interest in the KEP and its relationship to the BofA, this has been a truly fascinating thread.   Really looking forward to the eventual publication of this research.  

best,

--DB

[William Schryver]

I would like to report, without elaboration, that the finding described above in my previous post has now been confirmed via expert forensic document analysis.  And without specifying a timetable over which I have no control, I would estimate that the formal report of this finding (and other analyses that have been performed) will appear within a time frame expressed in months.

Given that the "(" has been confirmed to have overwritten the "h" in the line below (in conjunction with the other evidences adduced previously in this thread), it follows that the larger thesis concerning this locus is accurate: the highlighted portion (as seen below) is a later, interlinear insertion to the document in question.  



Of course, this finding permanently alters the nature of the debate over whether or not the Book of Abraham (at 1:12) contains an internal reference tying it to the Sensen text on the papyrus.

[Danite3459]

Thanks  Will,

This is a very significant contribution to the discussion of this issue.

Cool.

William Schryver, on Apr 5 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

I would like to report, without elaboration, that the finding described above in my previous post has now been confirmed via expert forensic document analysis.  And without specifying a timetable over which I have no control, I would estimate that the formal report of this finding (and other analyses that have been performed) will appear within a time frame expressed in months.

Given that the "(" has been confirmed to have overwritten the "h" in the line below (in conjunction with the other evidences adduced previously in this thread), it follows that the larger thesis concerning this locus is accurate: the highlighted portion (as seen below) is a later, interlinear insertion to the document in question.  



Of course, this finding permanently alters the nature of the debate over whether or not the Book of Abraham (at 1:12) contains an internal reference tying it to the Sensen text on the papyrus.

[William Schryver]

Thank you, Mr. Danite, for your blood-curdling commendation.

I predict that when good images of the KEP get in the hands of really smart people, we'll see many more provocative findings emerge from the expanded study.