107 replies to this topic

[Mortal Man]

maklelan, on 20 September 2010 - 12:31 AM, said:

Because I don't care about the "God of Koash" discussion

If you're going to argue for a missing archetype, you'll have to deal with Korash.

Quote

and because you've provided no argument for your particular view of directionality associated with Brent's table.

I’ve outlined it in sufficient detail for an expert text critic, such as yourself, to connect the dots. I’ve even numbered them for you.

  

Quote

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.

The wording I used is only one of many possibilities that explain the dittograph. He may simply have asked for everything on Parrish’s second manuscript that came after the text on his first manuscript so they’d be sure not to miss anything; e.g., Joseph may have made some corrections to Abr. 2:3-5 between Williams’ first and second iterations, which they wanted to be sure to capture.

  

Quote

The problem is your scenario is teetering upon far too many assumptions to be called plausible.

My scenario is driven by the textual evidence. I came to it after studying Brent’s table and concluding that Parrish must have copied Williams’ first iteration of the repeated text.

  

Quote

Occam's Razor favors my theory over yours without question.

No, Rube Goldberg favors your theory over mine 'without question.' For example, consider the temporal pattern of margin characters. Under your theory, they didn’t use them in the Q manuscript, then Williams used them for a while until he quit using them, then Phelps and Parrish used them, and finally Richards didn’t use them. So you have a pattern of off-on-off-on-off. Under my theory, the characters were consistently employed until Parrish finished his second manuscript. Then they made a decision to quit using them before Williams transcribed the second instance of his repeated text. So my pattern is simply on-off.

  

Quote

Your theory is thus meaningless unless you can provide some concrete evidence that supports it.

I can (and have) provided it. I can’t force you to consider it.

  

Quote

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.

The “Haran” homoioteleuton fits nicely with my theory but it’s not a necessary element; i.e., the “Haran” recurrence could simply be coincidence. I just wanted to make you happy by throwing you this particular bone.

  

Quote

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.

You’ll have to link me to the relevant thread/post(s), as I’ve neither time nor desire to hunt for it/them.

Quote

The different slant could also indicate he is just coming back to the text after an absence.

Which also supports the notion that Parrish completed ms. 2 before Williams completed ms. 1a.

  

Quote

Additionally, what Brent reads as "house" in both iterations from Williams' manuscript ("and from thy fathers house") is actually the word "home."

Okay, this would be an important find if you turn out to be correct. I see the similarities you point out in your images but I also see some differences. I just can’t tell for sure from what you posted. This may require examination of the originals.

  

Quote

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.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I think you’re dragging your baggage from other board into this thread.

[maklelan]

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

If you're going to argue for a missing archetype, you'll have to deal with Korash.

We'll see.

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

I’ve outlined it in sufficient detail for an expert text critic, such as yourself, to connect the dots. I’ve even numbered them for you.

You mean your assertions from the previous post? Naked assertion does not constitute evidence, and I responded to those already. If you mean something else, please specify. And don't waste any more of my time with patronizing comments.
  

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

The wording I used is only one of many possibilities that explain the dittograph.

No, the wording you used was the only possible way to word the phrase so that the misunderstanding you have to posit could have taken place the way you posited.

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

He may simply have asked for everything on Parrish’s second manuscript that came after the text on his first manuscript so they’d be sure not to miss anything;

So now you're positing that he knew about Parrish's polished copy but decided he wanted to catch up with his own now obsolete manuscript? Please explain how this makes any sense.

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

e.g., Joseph may have made some corrections to Abr. 2:3-5 between Williams’ first and second iterations, which they wanted to be sure to capture.

And those would have been captured in Parrish's manuscript. Your scenarios are becoming grotesquely irrational.
  

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

My scenario is driven by the textual evidence.

It absolutely is not.

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

I came to it after studying Brent’s table and concluding that Parrish must have copied Williams’ first iteration of the repeated text.

I don't believe anyone takes issue with that. My concern is over the assertion that Williams then copied his second iteration from Parrish's copy. What textual evidence supports this that does not lend equal support to my conclusion?
  

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

No, Rube Goldberg favors your theory over mine 'without question.'

Zing!

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

For example, consider the temporal pattern of margin characters. Under your theory, they didn’t use them in the Q manuscript, then Williams used them for a while until he quit using them, then Phelps and Parrish used them, and finally Richards didn’t use them. So you have a pattern of off-on-off-on-off.

You're ignoring multiple concerns. First, the "Q" document isn't a part of your scheme, since it was developed before any plan to include marginal characters was conceived. Second, I have shown that the marginal characters are secondary to Abr 1:1-3, and Will has shown they are also secondary to the rest of that manuscript. Williams' manuscript, then, is not a part of your scheme. Phelps' portion of the text was written first, so he doesn't get lumped in with Parrish after Williams. You've got Parrish using them with no real solid chronological relationship to the characters in Phelps/Williams, and then Richards doesn't use them. That's not problematic in the least.

[maklelan]

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

Under my theory, the characters were consistently employed until Parrish finished his second manuscript. Then they made a decision to quit using them before Williams transcribed the second instance of his repeated text. So my pattern is simply on-off.

But that simplification (which is no simplification at all) doesn't really overpower the multiplicity of irrational assumptions that you've stacked up elsewhere.

  

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

I can (and have) provided it. I can’t force you to consider it.

Link me to your concrete evidence that substantiates your assumptions, and it better be thorough.
  
nored that concern. What about failing to copy Abr 1:1-3? You've ignored that concern. What about all my other criticisms of your theory in [url="http://www.mormonapo

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

The “Haran” homoioteleuton fits nicely with my theory but it’s not a necessary element; i.e., the “Haran” recurrence could simply be coincidence. I just wanted to make you happy by throwing you this particular bone.

I don't need your bones. I need you to respond to the critical flaws in your theory without this impotent posturing.
  

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

You’ll have to link me to the relevant thread/post(s), as I’ve neither time nor desire to hunt for it/them.

[url="http://mormon*****.***/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=352083#p352083"]Here[/url].

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

Which also supports the notion that Parrish completed ms. 2 before Williams completed ms. 1a.

Now you're assuming his absence extended beyond the beginning of Parrish's transcription. Since you don't know when his absence began, when exactly Parrish's transcription began, and how long his absence was, it in no way at all supports your notion.
  

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

Okay, this would be an important find if you turn out to be correct. I see the similarities you point out in your images but I also see some differences. I just can’t tell for sure from what you posted. This may require examination of the originals.

I asked Brent several weeks ago if he would be kind enough to provide me with some of his hi-res photos and he's yet to give me an answer. He seems to be happier to provide material to you, so perhaps you can facilitate that for the both of us.
  

Mortal Man, on 20 September 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I think you’re dragging your baggage from other board into this thread.

Am I? What of my concern about your quite abandonment of the silly notion that the majority of NT scribes were illiterate? You've ignored that concern. What of my concern for the fact that no one has responded to my argument for the priority of Abr 1:1-3 over the AEG? You've ignored that concern. What about my concern with Smith "switching gears" mid-lacuna only to continue the same methodology through the rest of the lacuna? You've ignored that concern. What about all the other criticisms of your theory I posted in this post that you failed to address? Like I said earlier, you're not responding to the concerns, you're just asserting your theory is the best over and over in the hopes that it will outshine my theory as well as its own flaws.

[Mortal Man]

maklelan, maklelan, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
But one thing is needful: to realize that someone compared Parrish's two manuscripts and dictated the difference to Williams.

There are no "naked assertions" nor  "grotesquely irrational" scenarios; no "multiplicity of irrational assumptions" nor vile things "stacked  up elsewhere"; no "critical flaws" nor "impotent posturing"; no "teetering upon far too many assumptions" nor "limping in of a less  plausible scenario"; no "equivocating" nor "pretending"; no "small stack" nor "low pair"; no "arguing backwards from an increasingly irrational presupposition" nor ignoring of your concerns.

1. We are apparently in agreement that Williams took a lengthy break after scribing the first instance of his dittograph.
2. We are apparently in agreement that Parrish copied the first instance of Williams' dittograph into his second manuscript.
3. The seam in Parrish's second manuscript strongly indicates that dictation resumed at the end of his copying.
4. It is therefore unlikely (given 1, 2, & 3) that the second instance of the dittograph was present on Williams' manuscript when Parrish did his copying.
5. What Williams wrote after returning from his break matches the difference between Parrish's two manuscripts.
6. Some people like to back up their data and/or copy their papers before giving them to someone else.

Edited by Mortal Man, 21 September 2010 - 08:03 PM.

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 21 October 2006 - 07:52 AM, said:

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!

Have you been paying attention?  

William Schryver said:

Why, if  Williams is copying his own paragraph immediately above, does he  introduce these variants into the copy?

Because (A) he's not copying his paragraph immediately above, and (B) he's taking dictation.

William Schryver said:

And what "intention" is  manifest in so doing?

To create a copy (for backup or distribution) of Joseph's very latest translation, including any corrections he may have made to the text in Williams' absence.

William Schryver said:

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

Because the dictator continued reading from ms. 2.

William Schryver said:

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.”

nyet

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

Quote

Have you been paying attention?

Yes.

But apparently you have not.  You're replying to a quote of something I wrote four years ago!

My purpose was simply to underscore the fact that I addressed the majority of your arguments back then, and my responses are just as valid today as they were then.

On the other hand, in my 4+ years of dealing with Mormon critics, I have NEVER encountered a house of cards quite like the one you are busily erecting. And believe me, that is saying something.  (Although I haven't gotten around to reading the whole thing yet myself, I can now well imagine how accurate the assessments [to date] of your scroll length article must truly be.)

Your unfettered flights of fancy on this question are simply STUNNING!  Knowing how you can be at times, I've almost wondered if the whole thing is tongue-in-cheek; that you're just pulling our legs with these elaborate historical reconstructions.  For you, it would seem that Occam's Razor has been replaced by a gnarly old tree limb crudely fashioned to administer blunt force trauma--presumably to produce in your readers a state of mind sufficiently well-adapted to believe anything you tell them.

In any event, you have not yet replied to what is one of the most relevant questions vis-a-vis your novel theory: If the repeated paragraph is being dictated from Ab4(Parrish) (what you call MS2), then why, pray tell, is not the appropriate hieratic character inserted and a new paragraph begun at "But I Abram ..."?  You see, this is probably the biggest problem (among many) for what I think I shall formally dub "The Brent Lee Metcalfe/Andrew Cook Six-Deck Shoe House of Cards Explanation for a Simple Case of Dittography," or "TBLMACSDSHOCEFASCD" for short.  

(Gotta be a cipher hidden in there somewhere!)

Edited by William Schryver, 22 September 2010 - 07:37 AM.

[maklelan]

Mortal Man, on 21 September 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

maklelan, maklelan, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
But one thing is needful: to realize that someone compared Parrish's two manuscripts and dictated the difference to Williams.

But you've (1) not shown a single unique element of Parrish's second version, (2) not addressed the numerous differences between Williams' second iteration and Parrish's second version (including the house/home difference), (3) not addressed the fact that punctuation is utterly irrelevant, (4) not explained why Williams would do this in the first place, and (5) not explained why Williams would omit the character. You've really done nothing but make up a ludicrous theory and then assert it over and over again without responding to any criticisms. Like I said before, you're ignoring my concerns and just reasserting your thesis over and over again. Here's another perfectly good example of that tendentiousness:

Mortal Man, on 21 September 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

There are no "naked assertions" nor  "grotesquely irrational" scenarios; no "multiplicity of irrational assumptions" nor vile things "stacked  up elsewhere"; no "critical flaws" nor "impotent posturing"; no "teetering upon far too many assumptions" nor "limping in of a less  plausible scenario"; no "equivocating" nor "pretending"; no "small stack" nor "low pair"; no "arguing backwards from an increasingly irrational presupposition" nor ignoring of your concerns.

Notice that you don't respond to a single one of the concerns listed in my previous post. You're ignoring my concerns. The other criticisms are there as well, but just barking "Nu-uh!" is not really a sufficient enough response for me to have something to which I can actually respond. My criticism remains until you can actually respond to it.

Mortal Man, on 21 September 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

1. We are apparently in agreement that Williams took a lengthy break after scribing the first instance of his dittograph.
2. We are apparently in agreement that Parrish copied the first instance of Williams' dittograph into his second manuscript.
3. The seam in Parrish's second manuscript strongly indicates that dictation resumed at the end of his copying.

You're presupposing dictation.

Mortal Man, on 21 September 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

4. It is therefore unlikely (given 1, 2, & 3)

Those aren't givens.

Mortal Man, on 21 September 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

that the second instance of the dittograph was present on Williams' manuscript when Parrish did his copying.

That doesn't follow at all. All Parrish had to do was recognize the dittography, and you still haven't supported your assertion of dictation.

Mortal Man, on 21 September 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

5. What Williams wrote after returning from his break matches the difference between Parrish's two manuscripts.

No it doesn't. You've already commented that the house/home thing is important. Suddenly you forgot about that? Additionally, there's nothing in the text that is unique to Parrish's second version that is found in Williams' second version. You're just nakedly asserting he followed Parrish's version without a single shred of evidence to support that. I've already shown the punctuation is irrelevant.

Mortal Man, on 21 September 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

6. Some people like to back up their data and/or copy their papers before giving them to someone else.

No, Brent's had these photos backed up for years. He already gave some to Chris for his recent paper. If you're going to make excuses for him, at least make rational ones.

A number of slack-jaws at MDB seem to think that decorum requires a scholar to continue participation in an online debate (ad infinitum) even if the opponent is committing nothing but fallacy after fallacy and is refusing to listen to reason or respond to evidence. I disagree. As this thread shows, there's absolutely nothing productive, professional, respectful, or decorous about perpetuating discussion with someone who is unable to think critically and unwilling to address criticism. If you cannot respond to each of the concerns I listed in my previous post, then you prove you are not here to consider the merits of your argument, but only to try to shove it down someone's throat in spite of its lack of merit. I have no doubt this is exactly what you will prove. I wish upon a star that you were able to prove me wrong, but, unfortunately, I never seem to be wrong when it comes to this.

PS - For those slack-jaws who are reading, please take careful note of the antecedent of "this" in my last comment. By way of a hint, it's not "the Book of Abraham."

Edited by maklelan, 22 September 2010 - 01:37 PM.

[William Schryver]

maklelan, on 22 September 2010 - 09:29 AM, said:

Quote

Mortal Man
6. Some people like to back up their data and/or copy their papers before giving them to someone else.

No, Brent's had these photos backed up for years. He already gave some to Chris for his recent paper. If you're going to make excuses for him, at least make rational ones.

I'm pretty sure Andrew is referring to the motivation for which the dittograph ... er ... copied paragraph was produced.  You know, the whole "cut and paste" aspect of TBLMACSDSHOCEFASCD.

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

Quote

3. The seam in Parrish's second manuscript strongly indicates that dictation resumed at the end of his copying.

Having just taken some time to examine the relevant page of the document in question, I am befuddled by what this sentence you wrote above means.  Would you please elaborate?

What "seam" are you talking about?

What do you think "strongly indicates that dictation resumed at the end of his copying"?

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 22 September 2010 - 07:32 AM, said:

Although I haven't gotten around to reading the whole thing yet myself, I can now well imagine how accurate the assessments [to date] of your scroll length article must truly be.

What "assessments" are you talking about?

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 12:42 PM, said:

What "assessments" are you talking about?

Those of certain individuals, more qualified than I to make such an assessment.

As to their identities, all will reveal itself in good time.  Notwithstanding your having consigned the scroll length question to the depths of Mt. Doom, and your enthusiastic confidence in the methodology you employed to predict the measurement points for the winding lengths (a methodology, as I have indicated previously, I had [completely independently] considered myself and judged to be inherently incapable of producing reliable results), you certainly couldn't have thought your arguments would go unchallenged, could you?

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 22 September 2010 - 07:32 AM, said:

If the repeated paragraph is being dictated from Ab4(Parrish) (what you call MS2), then why, pray tell, is not the appropriate hieratic character inserted and a new paragraph begun at "But I Abram ..."?

It was likely for the same reason that Richards didn't bother with the hieratic characters; i.e., Joseph didn't specifically instruct him to include them. Williams only included them when Joseph was orally translating character-by-character; i.e., Joseph probably paused after translating each (set of) margin character(s), pointed to the papyrus (or EAG if in the lacuna) and said, "Now write down this/(these) character(s)."¹ During the simultaneous dictation session, JSP XI was probably situated where all three of them had easy access to it.² With all three of them poking at the papyrus and passing it around, the bond between the recto and verso layers became weakened at the right-edge of the lacuna, causing the first few characters on both the first and second lines to eventually separate from the papyrus.³ This, no doubt, caused great concern and led Joseph to place restrictions on the handling of the papyrus in his absence.⁴ Without access to the papyrus, Williams was unable to transcribe the hieratic characters when Cowdery or Parrish read to him from ms. 2.⁵

-------------------------------------------------

1. Three more grotesquely irrational assertions for maklelan to freak out about.
2. Two more slack-jawed assumptions for makelan's scorecard.
3. If you'd bothered to read our paper you would know this.
4. "Unprofessional" gratuitous speculation, just cause I feel like it.
5. One final stone before I "run and hide."

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

Quote

It was likely for the same reason that Richards didn't bother with the hieratic characters ...

Bingo!

Too bad the rest of your reply drove right off the cliff after that one brief burst of insight.

I continue to marvel at your capacity to erect one house of cards after another and, with a perfectly straight face, refer to it as though it were reinforced steel and concrete.

In any event, we can agree on this one point: Williams did not include the character between his dittograph and the text that followed for precisely the same reason there are no characters on the Richards manuscript.

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 23 September 2010 - 01:28 PM, said:

Those of certain individuals, more qualified than I to make such an assessment.

As to their identities, all will reveal itself in good time.  Notwithstanding your having consigned the scroll length question to the depths of Mt. Doom, and your enthusiastic confidence in the methodology you employed to predict the measurement points for the winding lengths (a methodology, as I have indicated previously, I had [completely independently] considered myself and judged to be inherently incapable of producing reliable results), you certainly couldn't have thought your arguments would go unchallenged, could you?

I replied to this over here, so as not to derail maklelan's thread.

[Mortal Man]

maklelan, on 22 September 2010 - 09:29 AM, said:

But you've (1) not shown a single unique element of Parrish's second version,

Why should we expect "unique elements" in a copied transcript?

Quote

(2) not addressed the numerous differences between Williams' second iteration and Parrish's second version (including the house/home difference),

Stay tuned.

Quote

(3) not addressed the fact that punctuation is utterly irrelevant,

It's true that punctuation was utterly irrelevant to most of the biblical scribes; in fact, you might say they were illiterate in that respect. However, from the ninth century onward, it grew in popularity and by the nineteenth century virtually everybody was using it. Today, punctuation forms an essential element of punctilious textual criticism.

Quote

(4) not explained why Williams would do this in the first place,

He did it in the second place; that's why it's called a dittograph.

Quote

(5) not explained why Williams would omit the character.

See my response to Will.

Quote

You've really done nothing but make up a ludicrous theory

On the Board That Shall Not Be Named, you complained over and over again that no one could come up with an alternate explanation for the dittograph:

maklelan said:

Unless you can produce a logical explanation for the presence of the dittograph in a dictated manuscript, your theory simply cannot hold.
...
I'm interested what data your can produce to show simultaneous dictation and account for the dittograph in Ab2 as well. The latter has yet to be done.
...
That's the only way that accounts for the dittography and the evidence of dictation,
...
Nor can you account yourself for the dittography. You've explicitly stated twice that you simply don't know how to explain it.
...
You can't forge ahead with your theory while a critical anomaly is just ignored.
...
you cannot provide a single one that is at all rational.
...
No other theory can account for the dittograph in any way that approximates rational.
...
etc. etc. etc.

You wailed and moaned about a parent text:

maklelan said:

There is evidence that points directly at a parent text. The best theory is the one that reasonably accounts for all of the evidence. Mine is the only one that does that. You can't pretend that a theory is good enough because it makes enough sense even if it doesn't explain why certain sections indicate there was a parent text. There's also absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was no parent text. That's a naked assumption. Your claim that I have to multiply sources is simply false. I'm not multiplying a thing, I'm just trying to identify the single source.

So I provided you with the parent text and explained how it fits the dittograph.

You repeatedly complained that I was "ignoring your concerns;" so I went back and addressed them all again, in detail, only to be accused, over and over again, of "reasserting [my] thesis over and over again."

Please make up your mind.

[Mortal Man]

maklelan, on 20 September 2010 - 08:55 PM, said:

Link me to your concrete evidence that substantiates your assumptions, and it better be thorough.

A "concrete" link for your "thorough" viewing pleasure.

[maklelan]

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

Why should we expect "unique elements" in a copied transcript?

Because you cannot say text X was copied from text Y and not from text Z unless you can show some manner of textual relationship shared by X and Y that is not shared by Z and Y. These are the grounds for asserting one text was the Vorlage and not another.

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

Stay tuned.

Ok.

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

It's true that punctuation was utterly irrelevant to most of the biblical scribes; in fact, you might say they were illiterate in that respect.

Actually punctuation simply wasn't used by anyone throughout the initial phases of the transmission of the biblical texts.  

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

However, from the ninth century onward, it grew in popularity and by the nineteenth century virtually everybody was using it. Today, punctuation forms an essential element of punctilious textual criticism.

But this means nothing vis-a-vis Williams' sporadic use of it.

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

He did it in the second place; that's why it's called a dittograph.

You're dodging the very clear point of my concern.

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

See my response to Will.

I see nothing in it that at all assuages my concern.

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

On the Board That Shall Not Be Named, you complained over and over again that no one could come up with an alternate explanation for the dittograph:

I complained over and over again that no one could come up with a rational alternate explanation. That fact is still in full force.

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

You wailed and moaned about a parent text:

I did not wail and moan. I explained the methodological support for that position to an audience that was hard of comprehension.

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

So I provided you with the parent text and explained how it fits the dittograph.

And I explained why your attempt to argue from your conclusion failed.

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

You repeatedly complained that I was "ignoring your concerns;" so I went back and addressed them all again, in detail, only to be accused, over and over again, of "reasserting [my] thesis over and over again."

No, you've still not addressed all of them, and in this post you don't respond in detail to any of them. You dodge and misunderstand, but you don't respond.

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

Please make up your mind.

My mind's made up. You're not willing or able to speak intelligently, objectively, respectfully, or responsibly about this topic. You still refuse to comment on your ludicrous assertions about NT scribes, and you've dodged the majority of the concerns I've pointed out. Good day.

[maklelan]

Mortal Man, on 23 September 2010 - 11:08 PM, said:

A "concrete" link for your "thorough" viewing pleasure.

See there my thorough response to your thorough misunderstanding of data which thoroughly undermines your conclusion.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi friends,

hmmm...

Did Frederick G. Williams write house or home?—that is the question... at least for some folks; not so much for me.  

I transcribed the letterforms that Dan and Will wonder about as house (in lieu of home) because that's what the text-critical evidence best supports. Several of Williams' letterforms sometimes share homoglyphic characteristics with other letterforms (such as us with m), requiring rigorous comparative analysis to properly distinguish. Both internal and external evidence led to my transcription choice of house. For example:

• Williams' inscription of the three sole occurrences of because in BA^1a mirror—quite literally—the use letterforms found in what I consider his three inscriptions of house.
  
  
  [BA^1a 1.30 (Abr. 1:11)]
  
  these virgins were offered up because of their virtue
  
  
  
  
  
  [BA^1a 2.14–15 (Abr. 1:17)]
  
  and this because --their--hearts--are--turned-- they have turned
  
  
  
  
  
  [BA^1a 3.34–35 (Abr. 1:30)]
  
  my father was sorely tormented because of the famine
  
  
  

• All other BoAbr manuscripts attest to because in the lines that parallel Williams' BA^1a.

• The use letterforms in the three instances of because are commensurate with the letterforms in the three occurrences of house:
  
  
  [BA^1a 1.30 (Abr.1:11)]
  
  because
  
  
  
  
  
  [BA^1a 2.14 (Abr. 1:17)]
  
  because
  
  
  
  
  
  [BA^1a 3.35 (Abr. 1:30)]
  
  because
  
  
  
  
  
  [BA^1a 2.13 (Abr. 1:16)]
  
  house
  
  
  
  
  
  [BA^1a 4.18 (Abr. 2:3)]
  
  house
  
  
  
  
  
  [BA^1a 4.31 (Abr. 2:3)]
  
  house
  
  
  
  
  
  Note that the third instance of because has use letterforms like the first instance of house, while the first and second because have use letterforms like the second and third house.

• Williams' first (and undisputed) usage of house forms part of a larger phrase—precisely the same phrase in which Williams' second and third usages appear:
  
  
  [BA^1a 2.12–13 (Abr. 1:16)]
  
  from thy fathers house
  
  
  [BA^1a 4.17–18 (Abr. 2:3)]
  
  from thy fathers house
  
  
  [BA^1a 4.30–31 (Abr. 2:3)]
  
  from thy fathers house

• All other BoAbr manuscripts attest to house in the lines that parallel Williams' BA^1a.

• Williams' initial <<from thy fathers house>> is part of a paraphrase of KJV Genesis 12:1.
  
  
  [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 2.10–14 (Abr. 1:16), bold emphasis added]
  
  And his voice was unto me - Abram Abram Behold my name is Jehovah and I have heard thee and have come down to deliver thee and to take thee away from thy fathers house, and from all thy kinsfolks, into a strange land which thou knowest not of;

• 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:

• As JS's dictation of the BoAbr continued, the phrase in Genesis 12:1 was slightly modified to reflect an autobiographical usage, still affirming the consistent usage of house over home:
  
  
  [BA² 10.6–7 (Abr. 2:17)]
  
  from my fathers house
  
  [BA³ 14.8 (Abr. 2:17)]
  
  from my father's ho{se±u}se

• Not one BoAbr manuscript contains an indisputable occurrence of the word home, yet house enjoys multiple attestations.

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.

Best wishes,

</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, 24 September 2010 - 06:09 PM.

[maklelan]

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.

Best wishes,

</brent>

Thanks for sharing those examples. It's clear "house" was meant and not "home." I asked a bit ago about access to some of your photos of the EAG and the translation manuscripts for research I intend to publish next year. Have you had the opportunity to consider my request?