107 replies to this topic

[Mortal Man]

Brent Metcalfe, on 24 September 2010 - 06:02 PM, said:

We can be confident, then, that house is not only a sound reading for all three usages in BA^1a, it is also the sole preferred reading. Put simply, home is an inferior, misguided reading.

Very interesting Brent; thanks for the info.

[Mortal Man]

Brent Metcalfe, on 24 September 2010 - 06:02 PM, said:

• Except for the addition of the autobiographical <<me>>, Williams' second and third usages of the phrase occur in reproductions of KJV Genesis 12:1 in its entirety:
  [Gen. 12:1, bold emphasis added]
  
  Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
  
  [BA^1a 4.17–18 (4.29–31; Abr. 2:3), bold emphasis added]
  
  Now the Lord had said unto me Abram get the out of thy country, and from thy kindred and from thy fathers house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

It seems to me that if Williams was comparing to Gen. 12:1 then that could explain the omission of "me" (later misinserted) and the change from "the" to "thee" in the second instance of his dittograph.

Edited by Mortal Man, 24 September 2010 - 08:28 PM.

[maklelan]

Mortal Man, on 24 September 2010 - 08:20 PM, said:

It seems to me that if Williams was comparing to Gen. 12:1 then that could explain the omission of "me" (later misinserted) and the change from "the" to "thee" in the second instance of his dittograph.

Why would Williams go and open up the KJV just to copy down Gen 12:1 when he clearly has the phrase he needs in front of him (either on page 4 of his manuscript or in the Vorlage from which he's copying). Even if you posit this is dictation, you have to recognize the verse is already available in the form they want. You've also still refused to address the fact that Williams uses both spellings ("thee" and "the") in his first iteration of the text. Why should "thee" in the dittograph be relevant?

[William Schryver]

Brent Metcalfe, on 24 September 2010 - 06:02 PM, said:

Did Frederick G. Williams write house or home?—that is the question...

I have no objection to your argument. Frankly, I never gave it much thought, although I had noticed the potential for an alternate reading (that is, "home" rather than "house").  I've just always assumed it was probably "house" since that's what we find everywhere else in the manuscripts.  I have previously transcribed it as "house."

In any case, it is a fact that certain letter forms, and certain groups of letter forms, pose significant challenges when dealing with Williams' penmanship--at least in this particular manuscript.  Other Williams manuscripts attest a beautiful hand.  Go figure. Maybe the good doctor was prone to taking a nip or two of his home remedies on occasion?

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dan,

Brian Hauglid's text-critical analysis of the BoAbr should be published within the next few months. His tome will include full-color scans of the original manuscripts. Brian's book will provide all students of the BoAbr with quality images for interpreting the text.

Kind regards,

</brent>



http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)
———————————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

The Inebriated Scribe Theory... hmmm... does have a certain ring to it. Though I can't imagine who would publish such unbridled speculation—especially given the vast array of physician Williams handwriting samples. As the saying goes, chirographic beauty is in the eye of the beholder... or something like that.

Cheers,

</brent>



http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)
———————————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

Edited by Brent Metcalfe, 26 September 2010 - 07:50 PM.

[Mortal Man]

maklelan, on 25 September 2010 - 11:54 AM, said:

Why would Williams go and open up the KJV just to copy down Gen 12:1 when he clearly has the phrase he needs in front of him (either on page 4 of his manuscript or in the Vorlage from which he's copying). Even if you posit this is dictation, you have to recognize the verse is already available in the form they want. You've also still refused to address the fact that Williams uses both spellings ("thee" and "the") in his first iteration of the text. Why should "thee" in the dittograph be relevant?

It's just an observation, not worth fighting to the death over.

[maklelan]

Mortal Man, on 26 September 2010 - 10:53 PM, said:

It's just an observation, not worth fighting to the death over.

So you concede the weakness of your presumption while at the same time try to passive aggressively paint me as irrationally overbearing in my criticism. Additionally, you continue to avoid addressing the numerous concerns I have with arguments that you have decided are worth fighting to the death over.