Brent Metcalfe Posted October 11, 2009 Posted October 11, 2009 Hi folks,For those who are interested, you can preview a sample of my transcriptions and text-critical annotations of the BoAbr manuscripts here (the file is a PDF that requires Adobe Reader to view). I welcome your input.Kind regards,</brent>http://mormonscripturestudies.com(
Alf O'Mega Posted October 11, 2009 Posted October 11, 2009 That's a tantalizing taste, Brent. Since I can't spot anything substantive to correct, let me suggest some minor editorial points:In the notes for 1.3, I'd suggest deterioration or disintegration instead of corrosion.In the notes for 1.5, I'd suggest "instead of" rather than "in lieu of," which usually carries a sense of intentionality about it, whereas you are describing a possible scribal error.Throughout, I would render the possessive of Phelps as Phelps's rather than Phelps'. It's a contested matter of style, but I'm unquestionably right. (!)
William Schryver Posted October 11, 2009 Posted October 11, 2009 That's a tantalizing taste, Brent. Since I can't spot anything substantive to correct, let me suggest some minor editorial points:In the notes for 1.3, I'd suggest deterioration or disintegration instead of corrosion.In the notes for 1.5, I'd suggest "instead of" rather than "in lieu of," which usually carries a sense of intentionality about it, whereas you are describing a possible scribal error.Throughout, I would render the possessive of Phelps as Phelps's rather than Phelps'. It's a contested matter of style, but I'm unquestionably right. (!)You nit-picker you!I haven't taken the time to examine it in any fashion much beyond a "quick scan," but I doubt very much that I will find as much to criticize as you have, you incorrigible fault-finder, you. I am a bit curious as to why we've been offered a partial transcription of KEPA #1 (Metcalfe's Ms. 2) when it's pretty much a given that most of the "controversy" will revolve around the meaning of KEPA #2 and #3. Maybe it's just designed to coincide with the publication of Chris Smith's paper? At any rate, I'm glad to see even this contribution, and look forward to more. I'm hoping that we'll be able to hold Hauglid's The Textual History of the Book of Abraham in our hands by, say, Super Bowl Sunday? Almost certainly no later than next General Conference.
Mortal Man Posted October 11, 2009 Posted October 11, 2009 Thanks for posting this Brent. To me, that is the most interesting page of the collection.For those who'd like some background, here's what Nibley said about it.
Mortal Man Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Now that is some expert textual criticism!Not only is this astute, it's also hilarious. Love the picture. I'll be vindicated when they dust for prints.
USU78 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 I'll be vindicated when they dust for prints.I thought Thing had filed off his prints.USU "Thank you, . . ., well, you know" 78
Brent Metcalfe Posted October 15, 2009 Author Posted October 15, 2009 Hi folks,To those who have provided constructive comments, many thanks.I've uploaded a revision of the preview sample of my transcriptions and text-critical annotations of the BoAbr manuscripts here (the file is a PDF that requires Adobe Reader to view). Again, I welcome your feedback.All the best,</brent>http://mormonscripturestudies.com(
Brent Metcalfe Posted October 19, 2009 Author Posted October 19, 2009 Hi friends,As I continue to refine my BoAbr transcriptions, I've made a few subtle
Mortal Man Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 At first glance, it appears to me that the initial stroke of the Z in Zibnah has been scribbled out. Zooming in, it's hard to tell due to limited resolution and compression artifacts. I assume you've looked at this under a magnifying glass. Is there something about the ink itself that suggests ink bleed or is your conclusion based primarily on Richards' subsequent instances of Zibnah? Can you show us some of Parrish's other Z's?
Brent Metcalfe Posted October 22, 2009 Author Posted October 22, 2009 Hi Mortal Man,Good questions...At first glance, it appears to me that the initial stroke of the Z in Zibnah has been scribbled out. Zooming in, it's hard to tell due to limited resolution and compression artifacts. I assume you've looked at this under a magnifying glass. Is there something about the ink itself that suggests ink bleed or is your conclusion based primarily on Richards' subsequent instances of Zibnah?What you see as "scribble" marks are artifacts of paper texture and, in all probability, the cause of the ink bleed (e.g., accidental blotting of a still wet stroke). Ink feathering appears at several loci throughout the manuscript. Richards' misreading had nothing to do with determining that the ink bled on the initial stroke of the Z in Zibnah. Zibnah is also the reading in BA1a (fldr. 2) and BA1b (fldr. 3), which I discuss at length in the annotations on those manuscripts.Can you show us some of Parrish's other Z's?Yes.In Joseph Smith's journal, Parrish reported interpretations of glossolalia that involved "the redemption of Zion."I have several such examples of Parrish's uppercase Z. Moreover, Parrish's uppercase L's clearly, and consistently, differ from his uppercase Z's (cf. Lord in 1.29).All the best,</brent>http://mormonscripturestudies.com(
Mortal Man Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Hi Mortal Man,Good questions...What you see as "scribble" marks are artifacts of paper texture and, in all probability, the cause of the ink bleed (e.g., accidental blotting of a still wet stroke). Ink feathering appears at several loci throughout the manuscript. Richards' misreading had nothing to do with determining that the ink bled on the initial stroke of the Z in Zibnah. Zibnah is also the reading in BA1a (fldr. 2) and BA1b (fldr. 3), which I discuss at length in the annotations on those manuscripts.Yes.In Joseph Smith's journal, Parrish reported interpretations of glossolalia that involved "the redemption of Zion."I have several such examples of Parrish's uppercase Z. Moreover, Parrish's uppercase L's clearly, and consistently, differ from his uppercase Z's (cf. Lord in 1.29).All the best,</brent>Thanks Brent. I see it now. Your Zion example helps a lot.
Brent Metcalfe Posted October 31, 2009 Author Posted October 31, 2009 Hi folks,For interested readers, I've corrected a few typos and elaborated on a few items in my preview sample (which you can download here). As always, I welcome your feedback.My best,</brent>http://mormonscripturestudies.com(
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.