107 replies to this topic

[Chris Smith]

USU78, on 09 September 2010 - 08:12 PM, said:

[A] consummation devoutly to be wished [for].

Are you telling me you hope I'll shuffle off this mortal coil?

[USU78]

Chris Smith, on 09 September 2010 - 09:37 PM, said:

Are you telling me you hope I'll shuffle off this mortal coil?

No!  Perish the thought.  Nor "off to Buffalo" neither.

[Chris Smith]

I suppose I should explain, since my sarcastic remark above was a bit obscure, that the organization that is funding my education here at CGU is actually the Howard W. Hunter Foundation-- decidedly not an anti-Mormon body.  This reflects, I think, that not all Mormons view my contributions to the Mormon Studies discourse as negatively as William does.  (Indeed, the reactions of my Mormon colleagues here at CGU have been almost uniformly positive.)

I also haven't lived with my parents for quite some time, except for spending some summers and vacations there to visit family and friends.  Not that it's anyone's business where I live.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 10 September 2010 - 06:45 PM, said:

I suppose I should explain, since my sarcastic remark above was a bit obscure, that the organization that is funding my education here at CGU is actually the Howard W. Hunter Foundation-- decidedly not an anti-Mormon body.  This reflects, I think, that not all Mormons view my contributions to the Mormon Studies discourse as negatively as William does.  (Indeed, the reactions of my Mormon colleagues here at CGU have been almost uniformly positive.)

I also haven't lived with my parents for quite some time, except for spending some summers and vacations there to visit family and friends.  Not that it's anyone's business where I live.

I have no doubt that Loyd Ericson and other such CGU kindred spirits are fully supportive of your approach to Mormon Studies.  Just don't be deceived into thinking that perspectives such as his are typical of "all Mormons" who are aware of your "contributions to the Mormon Studies discourse."  Indeed, I'm quite confident that I am in a much better position to assess the attitudes of "most faithful Mormons" when it comes to your not-as-transparent-as-you'd-like-to-believe anti-Mormon agenda. Nevertheless, I, for one, look forward to your future "contributions to the Mormon Studies discourse" and hope that your initial contributions are typical of what will follow.

[Chris Smith]

A few years back I wrote two papers for my "Bible in the Nineteenth-Century" class at Wheaton-- one on Joseph Smith, and the other on John Henry Newman.  Both were presented in class.  When I was done reading the Newman paper, my professor grinned and said, "So you played Joseph Smith straight, but you threw Newman under the bus?"  I suspect that what you perceive as "anti-Mormonism" is actually a general fascination with the weird and scandalous, and perhaps a bit of a childish penchant for tipping sacred cows.  If anything, I am more sympathetic to Mormons and Joseph Smith than to other religious leaders and movements, because I've been studying you so long that the things in Mormonism that used to seem "weird" now seem fascinating, persuasive, and appealing.

Anyway, my next contribution, in Sunstone Magazine, will be a study of Mormon themes in the science fiction and fantasy of Orson Scott Card.  That should be out in the next couple months.  I trust you will find it sufficiently anti-Mormon in tenor and content to reinforce your beliefs about me.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 11 September 2010 - 02:01 PM, said:

A few years back I wrote two papers for my "Bible in the Nineteenth-Century" class at Wheaton-- one on Joseph Smith, and the other on John Henry Newman.  Both were presented in class.  When I was done reading the Newman paper, my professor grinned and said, "So you played Joseph Smith straight, but you threw Newman under the bus?"  I suspect that what you perceive as "anti-Mormonism" is actually a general fascination with the weird and scandalous, and perhaps a bit of a childish penchant for tipping sacred cows.  If anything, I am more sympathetic to Mormons and Joseph Smith than to other religious leaders and movements, because I've been studying you so long that the things in Mormonism that used to seem "weird" now seem fascinating, persuasive, and appealing.

Anyway, my next contribution, in Sunstone Magazine, will be a study of Mormon themes in the science fiction and fantasy of Orson Scott Card.  That should be out in the next couple months.  I trust you will find it sufficiently anti-Mormon in tenor and content to reinforce your beliefs about me.

I'm quite certain that you will very deliberately produce many things that will run the gamut from "relatively neutral" to "almost friendly" in nature.  Just like our good buddy Dan Vogel, who has produced many works of genuine value alongside his ... ahem ... less impressive material.  But you should probably be aware that no one, and I mean no one in my circle of friends and acquaintances (associated with LDS apologetics) disagrees in the least with my assessment of you and your agenda.  

We know who you are.  

We understand your aims.  

You have set out to pursue a career through which you will seek to persuade people, in your own peculiar way, that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is not of divine origin, that its founder was not a prophet of the living God, and that its scriptures are not the word of God.  

No matter what innocuous, diversionary side projects you pursue along the way, I am confident your primary objective will remain constant.

[Chris Smith]

Well, William, thanks for the update on how I am viewed by you and your circle of friends.  Since all of your friends apparently share your view of me, I can only conclude that you don't count me among them.  That is unfortunate.  We had a more collegial relationship, once upon a time.

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 11 September 2010 - 02:32 PM, said:

you should probably be aware that no one, and I mean no one in my circle of friends and acquaintances (associated with LDS apologetics) disagrees in the least with my assessment of you and your agenda.

Come now William, you're not fooling anyone with your barking and growling.

How could any 'circle of friends' be tighter than this?

[Mortal Man]

maklelan, on 03 September 2010 - 08:06 AM, said:

The position you're adopting is more the "run and hide" method of argumentation.

Speaking of "run and hide" argumentation, where have you been since you posted this?

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man, on 12 September 2010 - 12:43 PM, said:

Speaking of "run and hide" argumentation, where have you been since you posted this?

FYI: Dan, his wife, and child have been heavily involved in the process of moving from Utah County to British Columbia, where he will be for the next year or so.

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man, on 12 September 2010 - 12:37 PM, said:

Come now William, you're not fooling anyone with your barking and growling.

How could any 'circle of friends' be tighter than this?

What are talking about?  I was just about to go Mike Tyson on him!  He's just lucky it was too far of a reach for my old stiff back; he slithered away (crawling over a copy of the Book of Mormon in the process) before I could snatch a bite out of that cute little ear of his.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I haven't spent a lot more time on this, but I did want to throw something out there. The Poenulus by Plautus has what has been termed as the "longest single case of dittography". I include it only as a point of reference. It is a problematic instance for several reasons. First, it occurs in both major recensions of Poenulus (meaning that it likely predates that major change that separated the two versions), it seems that the dittography was edited prior to the split in text families and independently edited afterward. It is quite possible in this case that the dittography was smaller than the duplicate endings now indicate, and that modifications were made following the dittography to make the text make more sense. It is also a possibility that it isn't a dittography at all, but caused by some other concern (like contaminatio - although this would be a problem rather unique to the kind of subject matter at hand). However, the text of Poenulus is perhaps the text with the most scribal changes in it comparing similar texts from its milieu. In the two major versions, hundreds of lines have been indicated as suspicious in this regard (often with one of the text lines simply missing this text that is found in the other). At any rate, the dittography that is identified covers lines 1371-1422 (the original material being found in lines 1315-1371). With a conservative estimate of 8 words a line, and 51 lines, that amounts to roughly 400 words of text.

Ben M.

[maklelan]

Benjamin McGuire, on 15 September 2010 - 08:30 AM, said:

I haven't spent a lot more time on this, but I did want to throw something out there. The Poenulus by Plautus has what has been termed as the "longest single case of dittography". I include it only as a point of reference. It is a problematic instance for several reasons. First, it occurs in both major recensions of Poenulus (meaning that it likely predates that major change that separated the two versions), it seems that the dittography was edited prior to the split in text families and independently edited afterward. It is quite possible in this case that the dittography was smaller than the duplicate endings now indicate, and that modifications were made following the dittography to make the text make more sense. It is also a possibility that it isn't a dittography at all, but caused by some other concern (like contaminatio - although this would be a problem rather unique to the kind of subject matter at hand). However, the text of Poenulus is perhaps the text with the most scribal changes in it comparing similar texts from its milieu. In the two major versions, hundreds of lines have been indicated as suspicious in this regard (often with one of the text lines simply missing this text that is found in the other). At any rate, the dittography that is identified covers lines 1371-1422 (the original material being found in lines 1315-1371). With a conservative estimate of 8 words a line, and 51 lines, that amounts to roughly 400 words of text.

Ben M.

There you go. Thanks for finding that.

[Mortal Man]

maklelan, on 16 September 2010 - 01:00 PM, said:

There you go. Thanks for finding that.

A nice find but the point is now moot.

I'll see your "Haran" homoioteleuton and raise you the possibility that somebody confused Joseph with Terah.

[maklelan]

Mortal Man, on 18 September 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

A nice find but the point is now moot.

I'll see your "Haran" homoioteleuton and raise you the possibility that somebody confused Joseph with Terah.

So I take it you're silently abandoning the notion that the majority of New Testament scribes were illiterate? Now you're hucking something else at the wall to see if it will stick. Let's take a look.

Mortal Man, on 18 September 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

And having already employed the EAG to translate Abr. 1:1-3

I suggest you respond to my criticisms of this conclusion before using it as a premise for your argument. If you look you'll notice no one has responded to them yet.

Mortal Man, on 18 September 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

Joseph prepares to switch gears in order to concentrate more directly on translating the Book of Abraham from the hieratic script on the sensen scroll.

So he decides to switch gears in the middle of the lacuna, and he starts by positing three more characters within that lacuna? This is how he concentrates more directly on translating from the hieratic script on the scroll?

Mortal Man, on 18 September 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

With the harsh lesson of the lost 116 pages of Book of Lehi firmly implanted in his psyche, Joseph determines from this point forward to produce at least two copies of his BoA translation: one for himself and one for the printer (and none for Martin Harris!).

But why doesn't he copy Abr 1:1-3? He's putting a portion of his newly copied material on the same piece of paper as Abr 1:1-3. Why is Abr 1:1-3 not in danger of being lost while the rest of that page is? That's a rather critical oversight of your theory.

Mortal Man, on 18 September 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

As they neared the end of second line of the papyrus, Williams experienced a brief phonetic crisis, thinking that Abram’s brother might be “Haron”.

Abraham's brother might be the father of the woman he married? I've already discussed spelling in the Abraham manuscripts.

Mortal Man, on 18 September 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

After transcribing the last character set from the second line of the papyrus into the margins of their manuscripts, Williams and Parrish waited for Joseph to receive the meaning of the final characters via divine inspiration.

So the EAG was only used for Abr 1:1-3? You're multiplying assumptions, here, by the way.

Mortal Man, on 18 September 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

Joseph got back together with Parrish and instructed him to combine everybody’s notes into a new manuscript (ms. 2). There was, however, one important change which needed to be made. It seems that somebody (perhaps Cowdery on his trip to New York) had done some reading and discovered that Pharaoh Amenophis worshipped the crocodile god.

Oh, you're just trying to fit everything in, aren't you? How many assumptions do we need to accept before you'll provide some actual evidence?

Mortal Man, on 18 September 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

When Williams got back, he picked up his own dictated manuscript (ms. 1a) from the previous Friday’s session and asked one of the other scribes (possibly Cowdery) to read to him what Joseph had dictated after "he continued in Haran.” The other scribe (not realizing/remembering that the simultaneous dictation session had ended out of sync, and perhaps misinterpreting Williams' request to mean that Joseph, rather than Terah, had "continued in Haran") then picked up Parrish's first dictated manuscript (ms. 1b), saw that it ended with “...daughter of Haran”, located the corresponding line in Parrish's second manuscript (ms. 2), and began dictating to Williams from “Now the Lord had said unto Abram...” And thus their cognizance abated; and the scribes tarried in Haran and dwelt there, as there were many homoioteleutons in Haran; and Williams turned again unto his dittograph, therefore he continued from the wrong Haran.

Wow, several more assumptions. Some issues:

1. Given the dictation theory requires the "out of sync" session would have been the only one of its kind, it's quite unlikely that Williams would have completely forgotten it, especially as he sat there with the manuscript from that session in his hand.

2. Your theory requires we assume that Williams asked the additional scribe (which your theory requires we assume was there helping Williams) exactly the following: "What did Joseph dictate after "he continued in Haran." Your theory then requires we assume that this scribe actually thought Williams was asking what Joseph dictated after the word "Haran"? We then must assume he turned first to Parrish's manuscript and found the word "Haran." Rather than tell Williams that's where the text ended, we must assume he then turned to Parrish's subsequent transcription (which we must assume he did not know was transcribed from Williams' manuscript), and read off from "daughter of Haran." We must assume that Williams did not know what was going on, even after his scribe turned to a manuscript that did not exist the last time Williams was there.

3. Your theory here is a question-begging concoction that provides a parent text for Williams' dittograph, but dogmatically avoids the most logical conclusion for that parent text. It seems everyone is coming around to the conclusions I've espoused since the beginning, but are finding creative ways to try to avoid the ones that are problematic for their dogmatism.  

Mortal Man, on 18 September 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

The papyrus was apparenty unavailable at this time for transcription of the hieratic characters into the manuscript's margin (and perhaps Cowdery didn't see the need for them, since they never bothered to line up the Egyptian characters in the BoM translation); hence, three lines into the dictation, Williams began using the full width of the paper.

The character was already on Parrish's second manuscript. If the text was copied from that manuscript, the character would have been available to Williams. Why didn't he copy it? Why didn't he copy the character at the beginning of Abr 2:6?

Mortal Man, on 18 September 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

They likely stopped on (missing) page “N” when they reached the end of Abr. 2:18.

Now the missing page theory is acceptable too. Your theory is simply rife with assumption. I see absolutely nothing in your theory which at all approximates a rational alternative to the parsimonious and rather obvious conclusion that the Book of Abraham narrative already existed in a textual form.

[Mortal Man]

maklelan, on 19 September 2010 - 09:41 AM, said:

Your theory is simply rife with assumption. I see absolutely nothing in your theory which at all approximates a rational alternative to the parsimonious and rather obvious conclusion that the Book of Abraham narrative already existed in a textual form.

I see that neither of the download counters on the attachments I posted have incremented in the last several days, which tells me that you haven't bothered to look at them.

I'm not claiming to describe exactly what happened. What I posted is simply a plausible scenario that fits all the evidence, no more, no less.

I had to modify my views to fit the data in Brent's table of comparisons. Before we can have a meaningful conversation about the dittograph, you'll need to examine Brent's table yourself.

Here's a snippet of what I posted on the other board.

The textual evidence suggests that:

1. Williams' ms. 1a and Parrish's ms. 1b were entirely dictated.
2. The dictation was simultaneous through “...daughter of Haran.”
3. Parrish copied his own ms. 1b to produce ms. 2.
4.  After “...daughter of Haran” he copied the first instance of Williams  dittograph, from “Now the Lord had said...” to “Therefore he continued  in Haran.” (Abr. 2:3-5)
5. At the end of his copying, Parrish changed his ink and took dictation (making fresh errors) from Abr. 2:6 through Abr. 2:18.
6.  The slant of Williams’ handwriting changes in the second instance of  his dittograph, indicating (along with the lack of punctuation,  abbreviations, homophonic changes and several other factors) that the  dictation was faster than it was in the first instance.
7. The second instance of the repeated text is consistent with dictation (not copying) from Parrish’s ms. 2.

The parsimonious approach to these documents is to examine the extant manuscripts before postulating missing ones.

Edited by Mortal Man, 20 September 2010 - 08:40 AM.

[maklelan]

Mortal Man, on 19 September 2010 - 10:08 PM, said:

I see that neither of the download counters on the attachments I posted have incremented in the last several days, which tells me that you haven't bothered to look at them.

Because I don't care about the "God of Koash" discussion and because you've provided no argument for your particular view of directionality associated with Brent's table (which is on MDB right now, if I recall).

Mortal Man, on 19 September 2010 - 10:08 PM, said:

I'm not claiming to describe exactly what happened.

That's actually exactly what you're doing, down to the very wording that Williams used in speaking with the scribe that was putatively present.

Mortal Man, on 19 September 2010 - 10:08 PM, said:

What I posted is simply a plausible scenario that fits all the evidence, no more, no less.

The problem is your scenario is teetering upon far too many assumptions to be called plausible. Occam's Razor favors my theory over yours without question. Your theory is thus meaningless unless you can provide some concrete evidence that supports it. Also, you claimed in your response to me that the lengthy dittograph problem was "now moot." The most likely conclusion does not become moot with the limping in of a less plausible scenario. You claimed to be raising me, now you're equivocating and pretending you were just checking. Either way, you've got the small stack and are playing the low pair.

Mortal Man, on 19 September 2010 - 10:08 PM, said:

I had to modify my views to fit the data in Brent's table of comparisons. Before we can have a meaningful conversation about the dittograph, you'll need to examine Brent's table yourself.

I've done so, and I see no argument. I see a collection of data that point in no particular direction. You've attached an assertion to that data, but that assertion is supported by no evidence whatsoever, and I can assert the exact opposite from the exact same data.

Mortal Man, on 19 September 2010 - 10:08 PM, said:

Here's a snippet of what I posted on the other board.

The textual evidence is as follows:

1. Williams' ms. 1a and Parrish's ms. 1b were entirely dictated.

This isn't evidence, this is a conclusion. It's also a conclusion against which I've argued in the past, and to date no one has directly addressed my argument.

Mortal Man, on 19 September 2010 - 10:08 PM, said:

2. The dictation was simultaneous through “...daughter of Haran.”

No one has really been able to respond to my critique of the evidence in favor of this. You're welcome to give it a shot.

Mortal Man, on 19 September 2010 - 10:08 PM, said:

3. Parrish copied his own ms. 1b to produce ms. 2.
4.  After “...daughter of Haran” he copied the first instance of Williams  dittograph, from “Now the Lord had said...” to “Therefore he continued in Haran.” (Abr. 2:3-5)
5. At the end of his copying, Parrish changed his ink and took dictation (making fresh errors) from Abr. 2:6 through Abr. 2:18.
6.  The slant of Williams’ handwriting changes in the second instance of  his dittograph, indicating (along with the lack of punctuation,  abbreviations, homophonic changes and several other factors) that the  dictation was faster than it was in the first instance.

The different slant could also indicate he is just coming back to the text after an absence. People often sit down to a text at a slightly different angle than they had previously. The lack of punctuation is meaningless since he uses inconsistent and sporadic punctuation throughout the entire manuscript. The abbreviations indicate haste, but dictation is no more supported than transcription. I often abbreviate common words when I'm transcribing texts. The homophonic change (singular) is also irrelevant, since he harmonizes the spelling in the dittograph but uses different spelling in the first iteration. As I've discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, as well, Williams' spelling can hardly be appealed to as evidence of anything other than his inconsistent spelling. It is no more indicative of dictation than it is of transcription.

Mortal Man, on 19 September 2010 - 10:08 PM, said:

7. The second instance of the repeated text is consistent with dictation (not copying) from Parrish’s ms. 2.

I haven't seen a decent argument for this, and the misplaced and secondary "me" kinda undermines that. Additionally, what Brent reads as "house" in both iterations from Williams' manuscript ("and from thy fathers house") is actually the word "home." See attachments (and ignore the numbering in their names). The first two are Williams' two iterations of Abr 2:3, with the word "home" clearly discernible. The third is Williams' version of Abr 1:16 with the second word of the phrase "father's house," with the /s/ in "house" clearly discernible. The fourth is Abr 1:28, which reads "come unto." You'll notice the /ome/ is identical in form to both iterations of the /ome/ in "home" in Williams' page 4. The fifth is Parrish's version of Abr 2:3, with the /s/ of "house" clearly discernible. I believe Brent's transcription is wrong. That undermines your and Brent's argument.

 home I.jpg   5.67K   11 downloads

 home II.jpg   3.59K   15 downloads

 home IV.jpg   10.41K   14 downloads

 home V.jpg   12.19K   10 downloads

 home III.jpg   9.23K   13 downloads

I also find the lack of punctuation irrelevant.

Mortal Man, on 19 September 2010 - 10:08 PM, said:

The parsimonious approach to these documents is to examine the extant manuscripts before postulating missing ones.

And I've done so and provided the most parsimonious explanation for the data (to which you've never responded. You're only hoping to provide an explanation strong enough to overpower mine). All you're doing is arguing backwards from an increasingly irrational presupposition. If you wish for this discussion to continue I would kindly request that you actually respond to my concerns rather than ignore them and just reassert your conclusions.

Edited by maklelan, 20 September 2010 - 03:19 PM.

[William Schryver]

Once again, I would like to refer readers of this thread to the original thread (now found near the bottom of the second page of the School of the Pundits forum) where I detailed the evidence for the dittograph on page 4 of Ab2.  At that time, Dan Vogel (acting, presumably, as a proxy and in concert with Metcalfe) argued that the second iteration of the repeated paragraph represented an intentional revision of the first instance.  He cited the variants between the two paragraphs as evidence against dittography, to which I replied with this post.

All of the variants are rather easily explained within the context of visual copying, and none appear to have any capacity to support the notion that dictation was involved in the production of the manuscript.

From the post linked above:

Quote

Vogel appears to be suggesting that Williams is intentionally revising the previous paragraph. I would invite Mr. Vogel and our readers to review the list of the differences that I detailed in the thread in the other forum:  

the ==> thee
brothers ==> bro
Sarai ==> Sarah
followed after me ==> followed me
flocks ==> flock
variations in punctuation

The first is a correction, the second a contraction, the third a variant spelling, the fourth an apparent haplography, the fifth an obvious misspelling in the "revised" copy.  And punctuation in the "revised" copy is lacking compared with the first.

Are these “significant” variants?  More importantly, do they evidence a conscious intention to revise the previous paragraph?  Let the reader judge.

But the reader must understand that under the Metcalfe theory, if this second paragraph is a copy, it must necessarily be a copy of the first paragraph.  

There is no other previously written text from which Williams might have copied!  

Parrish’s manuscript terminates before this paragraph begins.  Therefore, the questions about the variants turns back to Metcalfe and Vogel.  Why, if Williams is copying his own paragraph immediately above, does he introduce these variants into the copy?  And what "intention" is manifest in so doing?

And, most importantly, why does the text then continue AFTER the copy of the paragraph is complete?

Are we to infer that Williams raised his hand, said “Hey Joseph, hold on for a minute while I repeat that last paragraph.”  Then he quickly scribbles down the lines, and when he’s finished, he says, “OK, you can continue now.”  At which point he begins to transcribe the dictation again?  Frankly, this whole convoluted explanation being advanced by the Metcalfe/Vogel tandem makes ideas like group hallucinations and tin plates seem plausible in comparison.

Mortal Man is taking this "convoluted explanation" to new heights of assumption and speculation, but the simplest explanation remains the one I first advanced four years ago: this is a "text book" case of dittography--a visual copying error--facilitated by a classic specimen of homoioteleuton.

Edited by William Schryver, 20 September 2010 - 12:58 PM.

[William Schryver]

BTW, Dan, your observation of the “house” vs. “home” question is something I have long noted, but I remain uncertain of whether or not Williams did in fact write “home” rather than “house.”  I have reviewed all of Ab2 in the past hour, looking for instances of “*use” and “*ome” and the fact is that an argument can be made that Williams wrote “home” instead of “house.”  That said, Williams’ penmanship is fraught with inconsistencies, such that I am not prepared, at present, to concur with the argument that he meant to write “home” instead of “house.”

Nevertheless, there are other problems with the Metcalfe transcription.  To his credit, he has corrected (after I noted it) his initial error of transcribing “country” as “county” (wherein he missed the ligature “try” (as also found further on in “idolitry”).

I remain confused as to why he insists on leading the undiscerning reader to conclude that there is a break between “Therefore he continued in Haran” and “but I Abram and Lot my brothers son …”.

(See transcription here.)

Edited by William Schryver, 20 September 2010 - 01:37 PM.

[maklelan]

Looking over all the examples of /ou/, /om/, /ome/, /us/, /use/, and /me/ on page 4 (the only page to which I have access to a hi-res photo), it's clear Williams is horribly inconsistent. It still seems to me that "home" is intended rather than "house," but the second example seems clearer than the first, given Williams' /m/ generally has the first downward stroke higher than the subsequent two. A word that mitigates my conclusion to some degree is "caused," in Abr 2:1, which is attached.

 use I.jpg   2.33K   2 downloads

The downward stroke of the /s/ does not close the letter, but the /us/ is still much more distinguishable than in the putative "fathers house." The downward strokes of the /u/ are different from the angle of the downward stroke of the /s/. The final downward stroke of my /m/ has an angle in it that may indicate it's intended to be an /s/, but so does the final downward stroke in the /m/ in "come" from Abr 1:31 and "came" from 2:2:

 ome II.jpg   2.21K   2 downloads

 ame I.jpg   2.46K   2 downloads

In both cases, however, the first two crests on the /m/ are more rounded than in "home." That's not the case elsewhere, though:

 m VII.jpg   4.28K   4 downloads

 m VIII.jpg   2.97K   4 downloads

 m IX.jpg   2.52K   2 downloads