The KEP Abraham Manuscripts

[Bill Hamblin]

By "good reasons", I meant an explanation for the variant readings, which you have listed as follows:

I have, in fact, presented a possible explanation for them--several times in fact. What explanation have you given? None. How does the Metcalfe theory account for them? You won't say. Why not? Why won't you present an alternative explanation that accounts for the evidence in a way consistent with the Metcalfe theory? The silence is getting rather deafening.

[William Schryver]

Vogel:

By "good reasons", I meant an explanation for the variant readings, which you have listed as follows:

the ==> thee

brothers ==> bro

Sarai ==> Sarah

followed after me ==> followed me

flocks ==> flock

variations in punctuation

Apparently you missed the possible explanations given above:

Hamblin:

By assuming the original lost manuscript Q had the errors, we can assume that the first transcription corrected the errors, while the second one preserved the errors found in Q. That would account for the differences, would it not?

And I will repeat and elaborate on my comments vis-

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

I'll withdraw the "textbook" term if you'll actually engage the real issues.

Deal.

(By the way, if the dittograph was indeed unintentional, would you agree that it could be a textbook example?)

No. I will agree that it's textbook when the textbook contains examples like it, which would as far as I can tell involve a 2nd revised and enlarged edition. Regardless, it should be acknowledged that the repetition of a paragraph is possible, but not typical and certainly not "classic".

The real issues are:

1- If it is intentional, what was the purpose of recopying?

I don't know ... and neither do you. What was the purpose of having so many copies of the same thing in the first place?

No revisions of any substance were made. You have admitted that an unintentional second transcription is possible; why is an intentional transcription theory superior?

I didn't say I knew it was intentional or that it was superior, only that Will was assuming it was unintentional, which is required for a dittograph.

Assuming it was unintentional, why are there variants and why do the margins change? There seems to be a conscious decision to change the previous plan. At the very least, it should be acknowledged that the dittograph argument isn't as clear as Will wants to assume.

2- Assuming Metcalfe's theory, what was the manuscript source from which the second transcription was copied?

As I said before,

Good question. I don't know what Brent's theory is. Do the variant readings point to a MS Q or to a hasty copy of MS #1, perhaps as one of the scribes read to Williams? Any ideas?

Will's theory about MS Q seems reasonable until one considers the variant readings. This problem might be solved if one speculates that Williams switched from writing from dictation to copying from another MS, and in doing so (either intentionally or unintentionally) copied the same paragraph. This could be from either MS Q or from MS #1.

3- What is the â??â??change in purpose?â?â? (By the way, if the purpose was in fact changed, why does the change in margin begin only in the middle of the second transcription? Why not at the beginning?)

I don't know ... and neither does Will. Actually, 3 lines retain the margin, then 7 ignore it. One might be tempted to think Williams was leaving only enough space in the margin for the character and maximizing writing space, but the next paragraph doesn't even begin at the margin, or even the edge of the page for that matter. In other words, Williams didn't leave room for the next character. The plan has changed.

If the source for the repeated paragraph and beginning of the next was not MS Q, then perhaps it was a scribe reading MS #1 with Williams copying.

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

I don't see anything in Skousen's statement that shows a detailed understanding of the issues we are discussing.

To the contrary, I think Skousen is quite conscious of the issues we are discussing. He simply doesnâ??â??t think your arguments have any merit.

You "think"? Is he or is he not informed about the issues? Did he consider the variant readings in his opinion? None of this is evident in his statement. And now it is not evident in your statement about him either.

You quote Hamblin:

By assuming the original lost manuscript Q had the errors, we can assume that the first transcription corrected the errors, while the second one preserved the errors found in Q. That would account for the differences, would it not?

It's one thing to speculate about a MS Q to solve a problem, but now you are adding further speculations to support the first. That's an ad hoc hypothesis, which is not a good sign for your theory. You are asking us to believe a lot to accept your theory. It all started when you tried to avoid the idea that MS # 2 and MS #3 were written from JS's dictation and needed another MS from which Williams and Parrish could have copied.

Speculation 1: Williams copied from MS Q.

To maintain this position, you argued against Brent's evidence for dictation and pointed to examples of "definitive dittography". Now we are considering this repeated paragraph at the end of Williams's MS.

Speculation 2: Williams accidentally copied the same paragraph from MS Q.

When asked how the eye could skip 10-12 lines, you introduced an ad hoc theory.

Speculation 3: Several days separated the copying of the two paragraphs.

When variant readings were pointed out, you first said the variants were no big deal, nothing but simple scribal errors. Now, you side with Hamblin's ad hoc theory.

Speculation 4: Williams corrected the first paragraph as he copied from MS Q, but did not correct the errors when he copied the second paragraph.

Thus, a simple scenario becomes increasingly more elaborate and less believable.

The first item (the ==> thee) is a simple misspelling in the first instance of the paragraph that is corrected in the second. No mystery there.

The first can be explained by the possibility of JS pronouncing his "the" with a long e. In such case, both "the" and "thee" sound the same.

The second item (brothers ==> bro) is a contraction unique to the second instance of the paragraph. Iâ??â??m not sure what â??â??explanationâ?â? is necessary, or how the variant could possibly have any relevance to the question of whether or not this is a dittograph. If you think it is significant, please explain why.

It doesn't. I'm only concerned with the variant readings between the repeated paragraph.

The third item (Sarai ==> Sarah) can be explained quite plausibly as a simple scribal error; a misspelling. All the other manuscripts show â??â??Saraiâ?â?. It is possible that Ms. Q read â??â??Sarahâ?â?, or it is possible, and quite likely, that the scribe simply wrote â??â??Sarahâ?â? because â??â??Sarahâ?â? was more familiar to his scribal reflexes. In any event, I canâ??â??t see how it has any relevance whatsoever to the question of the dittography. If you think it is significant, please explain why.

This creates a problem for Hamblin's suggestion that the first copy of the paragraph was the more correct one. Here you are suggesting the reverse.

These variant readings a significant because they diminish the force of and complicate your argument for dittography. What you thought was a simple matter of copying the same paragraph twice, isn't so simple.

The fourth item (followed after me ==> followed me) is a simple case of haplography. The other manuscripts read â??â??followed after meâ?â?. Presumably Ms. Q also read â??â??followed after meâ?â?, but Williams simply left out the word by mistake. Of course, this is the kind of thing that happens all the time when scribes are making copies. It certainly doesnâ??â??t represent a â??â??revisionâ?â? since none of the other manuscripts nor the Times & Seasons version reflect it. It certainly has no relevance to the question of whether or not this is a dittograph. If you think it is significant, please explain why.

So, you think any time a word is left out that it's haplography? It stands to reason that your definition of haplography would be as simple and non-contextual as your definition of dittography. Haplography is the reverse of dittography. The eye skips forward to the same word and the intervening words are accidentally omitted.

If I follow Hamblin's logic, MS Q didn't have "after". When Williams copied it the first time, he added "after", but left it out the second time. But perhaps you don't want to use your theory in this case, and that's what makes it ad hoc. This would be the second time you abandoned Hamblin's theory.

The fifth item (flocks ==> flock) is, again, simply a misspelling; a common scribal error; a â??â??typoâ?â? if you will. It cannot be reasonably argued that it represents a â??â??revisionâ?â? or that the variant could have any relevance to the issue of dittography. If you think it is significant, please explain why.

Interestingly, you have left out the context that you insisted on before. I previously wrote:

First paragraph: ... as there were many flocks in Haran.

Second paragraph: ... as there were <many> flock in Haran.

Williams may have thought without "many" flock should be singular.

Again, I have to wonder why you abandon Hamblin's theory? Why did you invoke his theory, and then ignore it in every instance?

As to the issue of the differences in punctuation, we know that the other transcriptions of Joseph Smithâ??â??s translation dictations contained little or no punctuation. Therefore Williams, as a copyist, would have been in a position of having to punctuate as he went along, or to go back and punctuate secondarily. This manuscript shows evidences of both. And if Williams is generating a dittographic reproduction of this paragraph by copying the original Ms. Q, it is no big surprise that his punctuation varies from the first copy to the second.

Not only do you speculate about MS Q, you also know its content and whether or not it was punctuated. It's amazing how MS Q is whatever you need it to be. What you have here is an unfalsifiable ad hoc theory.

Simply put, this repeated argument of â??â??variantsâ?â? is a smokescreen, and it is impotent against the issue of the dittograph. Again, if you think these variants have some significance, please explain why.

I think I have done that.

You have yet to respond to several questions posed above:

-- What is the purpose of this copied paragraph according to the Metcalfe theory?

I don't know what Brent thinks on this matter.

-- What was the source for the copied paragraph?

I'm not sure, but see my response to Hamblin.

-- Why, and in what way did the method of composition change?

See my response to Hamblin.

-- Why did the scribe continue with the transcription at the conclusion of the copied paragraph?

I'm not sure what significance that would have either way.

The variants issue gets you nowhere. They plainly donâ??â??t represent meaningful â??â??revisionsâ?â? of any kind, and they can all be easily explained within the context of a dittographic copy.

No, they can't be "easily explained". They are complicating factors to your theory. They don't have to be "meaningful revisions" to raise questions about the idea that the same source was copied twice. You think all the variations can be scribal errors, and Hamblin tries to turn Williams into an inconsistent reviser-copyist.

I appreciate the difficulty in which you find yourself, but that is no excuse for failing to address the real issues as embodied in the questions just listed.

I don't find myself in any difficulty whatsoever since nothing very serious rests on it. Personally, I don't have any particular theory to defend. I'm simply critiquing your theory in contrast to Brent's.

[Bill Hamblin]

This problem might be solved if one speculates that Williams switched from writing from dictation to copying from another MS, and in doing so (either intentionally or unintentionally) copied the same paragraph. This could be from either MS Q or from MS #1.

No it couldn't be #1, because #1 doesn't have the variants. You don't get to ignore the variants when convenient for you while insisting that others must account for them.

If the source for the repeated paragraph and beginning of the next was not MS Q, then perhaps it was a scribe reading MS #1 with Williams copying.

I like this theory. It has great potential. Because, of course, it opens the door that the entire manuscript was read out loud from Q, which could thereby explain all of Brent's supposed dictation variants. Which is why, of course the entire debate is rather pointless.

This problem might be solved if one speculates that Williams switched from writing from dictation to copying from another MS, and in doing so (either intentionally or unintentionally) copied the same paragraph. This could be from either MS Q or from MS #1.

Why would Williams possibly intentionally recopy paragraph 2 from Q or Ms #1 when he had that precise paragraph on the page he was writing on? This theory simply boggles the mind. Besides the fact that you can give no rational reason why he would recopy it intentionally, it is even more irrational for him to intentionally copy from another manuscript precisely the text he has on his own manuscript. If the second paragraph is intentionally recopied, the source would be Williams' first paragraph.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

This problem might be solved if one speculates that Williams switched from writing from dictation to copying from another MS, and in doing so (either intentionally or unintentionally) copied the same paragraph. This could be from either MS Q or from MS #1.

No it couldn't be #1, because #1 doesn't have the variants. You don't get to ignore the variants when convenient for you while insisting that others must account for them.

I have accounted for them twice now. That's why I speculated that MS #1 could have been read to Williams, rather than visually copying. I can do that, because unlike Will I'm not trying to establish dittography to argue against JS involvement in the production of these texts. But if you want to insist that variants disprove copying and drop your theory, so be it.

If the source for the repeated paragraph and beginning of the next was not MS Q, then perhaps it was a scribe reading MS #1 with Williams copying.

I like this theory. It has great potential. Because, of course, it opens the door that the entire manuscript was read out loud from Q, which could thereby explain all of Brent's supposed dictation variants. Which is why, of course the entire debate is rather pointless.

It's just a theory. But my version takes into account the change of purpose evident in the Williams MS. While I appreciate the concession that Brent's evidence points to oral dictation, I believe you are mistaken in thinking that it explains all of Brent's evidence, unless the person reading MS Q was JS.

I also agree that the debate is pointless, but perhaps for a different reason. However, the debate exists because Will and Co. are eager to distance JS from these texts and to fictionalize their creations as some kind of experimenting among the scribes, which makes no sense whatsoever.

This problem might be solved if one speculates that Williams switched from writing from dictation to copying from another MS, and in doing so (either intentionally or unintentionally) copied the same paragraph. This could be from either MS Q or from MS #1.

Why would Williams possibly intentionally recopy paragraph 2 from Q or Ms #1 when he had that precise paragraph on the page he was writing on? This theory simply boggles the mind. Besides the fact that you can give no rational reason why he would recopy it intentionally, it is even more irrational for him to intentionally copy from another manuscript precisely the text he has on his own manuscript.

I suggested it as part of the equation because I don't feel confident in ruling it out at this time. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it couldn't make sense to Williams. He may have had reasons unapparent to us. If it were read to Williams, he may have decided to write it down in case it was different. You are assuming he knew what you know. The change in format also causes me to hesitate. Maybe, I'll eventually change my mind.

If the second paragraph is intentionally recopied, the source would be Williams' first paragraph.

I'll need more explanation for why you think this is so.

[Bill Hamblin]

I have accounted for them twice now. That's why I speculated that MS #1 could have been read to Williams, rather than visually copying. I can do that, because unlike Will I'm not trying to establish dittography to argue against JS involvement in the production of these texts.

Actually, in the passage under discussion you said

Williams switched from writing from dictation to copying from another MS, and in doing so (either intentionally or unintentionally) copied the same paragraph.

I took that to mean copying (not being read) a MS (not dictation). At any rate, just so I understand: is your position now that the only explanation for the second paragraph is that it was written from an oral reading of MS #1? Is that your final answer?

But if you want to insist that variants disprove copying and drop your theory, so be it.

Actually, I've never claimed that; that has consistently been your position until now. I believe it is perfectly possible for copyists to introduce errors not found in the original manuscript. Indeed, this happens all the time. If it didn't, textual criticism would not be necessary. You've argued that the theory of unintentional dittography must account for the variants in paragraph two. We've presented two possible explanations: 1- they were errors made in the second transcription, or 2- they were found in Q, were corrected in paragraph 1, but were retained in paragraph 2.

So, are we now agreed that it is possible that new variants could have been introduced into paragraph #2 that were not in the original source?

But my version takes into account the change of purpose evident in the Williams MS. While I appreciate the concession that Brent's evidence points to oral dictation, I believe you are mistaken in thinking that it explains all of Brent's evidence, unless the person reading MS Q was JS.

You version asserts that there was an unknown and unexplained change of purpose. It is by no means evident.

I did not "concede" that "Brent's evidence points to oral dictation." Rather I called it "supposed dictation variants." Of course it is possible that the person reading Q was JS (assuming there was actually someone reading Q). Do you agree that it is possible that the BOA MS could have been produced by someone reading Q orally?

I also agree that the debate is pointless, but perhaps for a different reason.

The debate is pointless because no matter how the manuscripts were produced, it is possible that the BOA is not ancient nor revelation; and no matter how the manuscripts were produced, it is possible that the BOA is a reveled translation of an ancient source. In the end, Brent's years of work and speculation will demonstrate precisely nothing regarding the authenticity of the BOA. Which is why this will be my last post on this topic.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it couldn't make sense to Williams. He may have had reasons unapparent to us.

I simply assume that Williams was a rational man, and if he did something "intentionally" then he had a reason for doing it. You have yet to provide any evidence, or even speculation for such a supposed reason. Your initial position seems to have been that it was an "intentional revision," but since nothing was revised you now seem to have dropped this.

If it were read to Williams, he may have decided to write it down in case it was different. You are assuming he knew what you know.

I like this new theory, too. What you are saying is that it was an unintentional dittograph from an oral recitation. In other words, you are now agreeing that it was unintentional all along. How does this provide a reason for intentional recopying? Of course, if this was intentional--that is, if Williams knew that paragraph 1 was being recopied--in the real world of rational behavior, after a few words, Williams would have said, "Wait a minute, I've already written this down. We don't need to copy it again."

I'll need more explanation for why you think this is so.

If the dittograph is intentional, then Williams knew he was going to recopy paragraph 1. If this is the case, either Williams copied from some pre-existing manuscript, or someone read a pre-existing manuscript and Williams wrote down what was said. But, if Williams' purpose all along was to knowingly make a second copy of paragraph--and given that there is no revision, only variant errors in paragraph 2--any rational man would simply have copied the paragraph that was already there on his own manuscript.

[William Schryver]

Vogel:

Speaking of Skousenâ??s analysis:

Is he or is he not informed about the issues? Did he consider the variant readings in his opinion?

Skousen was given the manuscript along with a full explanation of the issues. Skousen analyzed the manuscript carefully, consistent with his expertise. He immediately recognized the dittograph, and the homoioteleutons that facilitated it. He considered the insignificant variants just that â?? insignificant.

However, in order to satisfy Vogel's curiosity, I inquired again regarding the specific question of these variants in the second paragraph, to which he has now replied:

These kinds of errors could readily occur in a second copying.

Royal Skousen to William Schryver, personal e-mail, used by permission, 10/25/06

Plain and simple.

Vogel wants to make something out of them because itâ??s all the Metcalfe theory has left to stand on. But there is nothing to make of them. They must be scribal errors because, quite simply, they are not attested anywhere else!

There is no place he could have copied them from, unless (as Bill suggested as a possibility) they were in Ms. Q. I am not inclined to believe that myself. I obviously believe that the simplest explanation is that Williams introduced them during the process of the dittograph. That is why I argued in that fashion. The fact that I cited Billâ??s answer was simply in reply to Vogelâ??s false assertion that neither Hamblin or myself had offered explanations for the variants. We had. I cited Hamblin's, and then elaborated on mine. Vogelâ??s feeble attempt to conflate them and then use their perceived contradictions as a club fell considerably short of an effective retort.

In any case, the variants are absolutely insignificant. They donâ??t diminish the dittograph, which is clearly facilitated by the â??Haranâ? homoioteleutons at the ends of the paragraphs. Vogelâ??s attempt to discredit Skousenâ??s analysis was just another desperate maneuver on his part.

The fact of the matter is that one of the most highly-respected textual critics in the country considers this a dittograph, and that the document in which it is found is a visual copy of a Ms. Q. Metcalfe and Vogel just donâ??t like his conclusion, and so theyâ??re very anxious to cast doubt on it anyway they can.

Skousenâ??s analysis bears repeating here:

I think this is very definitely a question of visual dittography arising from copying from another manuscript. Your analysis seems perfectly correct, with the scribe coming back later and thus making the mistake. This kind of long dittography can definitely occur when someone is coming back to copying after some delay.

Royal Skousen to William Schryver, personal e-mail, used by permission, 10/21/06

Vogel continues:

So, you think any time a word is left out that it's haplography? It stands to reason that your definition of haplography would be as simple and non-contextual as your definition of dittography. Haplography is the reverse of dittography. The eye skips forward to the same word and the intervening words are accidentally omitted.

Vogel is mistaken on two counts.

In the first place, despite his unsubstantiated attempt to disparage my understanding of dittography, my definition is correct, and my analysis confirmed, in toto, by an expert in the field of textual criticism. Metcalfe and Vogelâ??s desire to redefine the parameters of dittography is unwarranted, and lacks support from any quarter â?? textbooks or experts.

Secondly, a haplography need not be facilitated by either homoioteleuton or homoioarcton, and in that respect is not the exact â??reverseâ? of dittography. Any omission of letters or words from exemplar to abschrift is considered a haplography. And, as I noted earlier, the omission of â??afterâ? in this paragraph is clearly a case of haplography since the word is attested in all of the other manuscripts.

Furthermore, Vogel can call it whatever he prefers â?? its significance will remain unchanged.

The bulk of Vogelâ??s reply is an ambitious multiplication of words that seeks to generate enough smoke to obscure the fact he cannot account for the dittograph in this manuscript. Again, I understand his motivation. Its presence poses a mortal threat to the Metcalfe theory.

And the reader should not forget that this dittograph is not alone! We have already spoken about the dittograph on page 2 of the manuscript (â??gods of the landâ?). I have already demonstrated, earlier in this thread, how the Metcalfe theory fails to explain that instance as well, and how the various explanations offered by Metcalfe and Vogel are contradictory.

In summary, there is nothing complicated at all about this dittograph. Its facilitation by homoioteleuton is obvious: two paragraphs ended in â??Haranâ?, the instance of â??Haranâ? in the initial paragraph occupied a line by itself. The scribeâ??s eye looked back to the exemplar and caught the previous instance of â??Haranâ? and then repeated the paragraph in the abschrift. The assumption that the scribe had resumed copying after a delay is a logical one. Professor Skousen concurs with the analysis completely. Vogelâ??s attempt to dismiss Skousenâ??s analysis has no merit whatsoever.

The only evidence that Metcalfe can marshall to support his theory of simultaneous oral dictation is the presence of several common emendations in the two manuscripts. He wrongly assumes that his thesis is the only explanation for these common emendations. He fails to consider the likelihood that all of these errors requiring emendation were attested in Ms. Q when these copies were made. The scribes made true copies of the exemplar, and then both went back afterwards and edited their copies. Indeed, the vast majority of the editorial emendations in these manuscripts appear to be secondary in nature. When first confronted with the manuscripts, Professor Skousen immediately noted the various secondary emendations. Future, formal professional analysis will no doubt confirm his initial observation.

In summary, the visual copying theory I propose can easily account for:

-- the common emendations and their secondary nature

-- the visual copying errors (dittography, haplography) present in both documents

-- the entire absence of homophones (the most typical dictation error)

-- the variants (including the spelling of Elk-keenah/Elkkener and other names) between the two manuscripts that are not consistent with Joseph Smith's dictation practices

-- the presence of considerable punctuation (including complex punctuation inconsistent with oral dictation such as colons; semi-colons, and parentheses)

-- the fact that the manuscripts are of different lengths.

The Metcalfe theory can only account for the common emendations, but fails to account for all of the other textual anomalies attested in Mss. #2 and #3.

Whatever KEPA Mss. #2 and #3 are, they are most certainly not transcriptions of Joseph Smithâ??s original dictation of the translation of the Book of Abraham. I will not speculate as to why these scribes made these copies, but copies they are.

[Bill Hamblin]

There is no place he could have copied them from, unless (as Bill suggested as a possibility) they were in Ms. Q. I am not inclined to believe that myself. I obviously believe that the simplest explanation is that Williams introduced them during the process of the dittograph.

Just for clarification, I don't insist that the variants are original to Q. That is simply a possible explanation. Will's view that they are simply errors might very well be correct. Either explanation is perfectly consistent with Will's theory of visual copying rather than oral dictation.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

The debate is pointless because no matter how the manuscripts were produced, it is possible that the BOA is not ancient nor revelation; and no matter how the manuscripts were produced, it is possible that the BOA is a reveled translation of an ancient source. In the end, Brent's years of work and speculation will demonstrate precisely nothing regarding the authenticity of the BOA. Which is why this will be my last post on this topic.

I like this theory too! I think the best course for the apologists is to assert as a matter of faith that the BOA was JS's revelation, but that he pretended it was a translation of the papyri in his possession because that is what his followers wanted to believe.

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

Thanks for getting Skousen to clarify his position. I wanted that clarification because it wasn't at all clear from his statement that you posted.

A few comments.

There is no place he could have copied them from, unless (as Bill suggested as a possibility) they were in Ms. Q. I am not inclined to believe that myself. I obviously believe that the simplest explanation is that Williams introduced them during the process of the dittograph. That is why I argued in that fashion. The fact that I cited Billâ??â??s answer was simply in reply to Vogelâ??â??s false assertion that neither Hamblin or myself had offered explanations for the variants. We had. I cited Hamblin's, and then elaborated on mine. Vogelâ??â??s feeble attempt to conflate them and then use their perceived contradictions as a club fell considerably short of an effective retort.

My purpose has been achieved with Bill's withdrawal of his theory. As you recall, you quoted Bill's theory, apparently because he has a PhD and you wanted to project as much authority as you could. You are well-known for adopting contradicting theories and using them simultaneously against a position you don't like. I won't repeat my arguments against this maneuver, which I gave near the beginning of this thread.

So, your position is that the variants between the two paragraphs are scribal errors. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Vogelâ??â??s attempt to discredit Skousenâ??â??s analysis was just another desperate maneuver on his part.

I wasn't discrediting Skousen's "analysis"; I was asking for one. All you presented was his opinion. It's still his opinion that the variants could be scribal errors. He doesn't know for a fact that they are.

The fact of the matter is that one of the most highly-respected textual critics in the country considers this a dittograph, and that the document in which it is found is a visual copy of a Ms. Q. Metcalfe and Vogel just donâ??â??t like his conclusion, and so theyâ??â??re very anxious to cast doubt on it anyway they can.

I have said from the outset that I think Brent makes an exception for this last paragraph. You think the repetition of the last paragraph is in keeping with the entire MS. But that's an assumption on your part. I have pointed to the loss of margin and lack of characters as an indication that this last portion departs from the plan of the previous material. I have also suggested that the paragraph was repeated, either intentionally or unintentionally. What I have questioned is your assumption that it was unintentionally copied twice from the same MS Q. You are assuming a dittograph can only occur one way. The previous portion can be from dictation, while the repeated paragraph could come from copying from MS #1 (as it was dictated by a scribe or JS) or MS Q.

If the repeated paragraph was a simple unintentional dittograph, then why the change in margin and the discontinuance of characters?

[William Schryver]

I wrote:

There is no place he could have copied them from, unless (as Bill suggested as a possibility) they were in Ms. Q. I am not inclined to believe that myself. I obviously believe that the simplest explanation is that Williams introduced them during the process of the dittograph. That is why I argued in that fashion. The fact that I cited Billâ??â??s answer was simply in reply to Vogelâ??â??s false assertion that neither Hamblin or myself had offered explanations for the variants. We had. I cited Hamblin's, and then elaborated on mine. Vogelâ??â??s feeble attempt to conflate them and then use their perceived contradictions as a club fell considerably short of an effective retort.

To which Vogel replied:

As you recall, you quoted Bill's theory, apparently because he has a PhD and you wanted to project as much authority as you could.

Did I? Vogel is apparently wearing his mind-reading hat again. And if I wanted to â??project as much authorityâ? as I could, why then did I make it perfectly clear that I did not agree with his theory? There is a strange inconsistency to be seen in someone who cites a PhD to â??project authorityâ? and then promptly disagrees with the opinion of that same â??authority.â?

Vogel again:

You are well-known for adopting contradicting theories and using them simultaneously against a position you don't like.

I understand that Vogel believes, in his semantically-challenged world of group hallucinations and tin plates, that I have adopted contradictory theories. Vogel has consistently struggled in his attempts to distinguish the two very different concepts of â??posited possibilitiesâ? and â??adopted theoriesâ?. Of course, this is the same â??historianâ? who is â??well-knownâ? for having manifest a pronounced inability to distinguish between â??posited possibilitiesâ? and â??established factsâ?.

So, your position is that the variants between the two paragraphs are scribal errors. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Yes, that is my position. And lest I miss out on an opportunity to â??project as much authorityâ? as I can, I might also remind our readers that it happens to be the position of Professor Skousen, as cited above.

I wasn't discrediting Skousen's "analysis"; I was asking for one. All you presented was his opinion.

I think I aimed to present his professional opinion.

I have said from the outset that I think Brent makes an exception for this last paragraph.

I am uncertain what is meant by â??makes an exception.â? But I do understand why this dittographic paragraph presents such profound problems for the Metcalfe theory.

You think the repetition of the last paragraph is in keeping with the entire MS. But that's an assumption on your part. I have pointed to the loss of margin and lack of characters as an indication that this last portion departs from the plan of the previous material.

The â??loss of marginâ? is not something unique to this page of the manuscript. On page 2, Williams begins at the edge of the sheet, and then, after writing four lines, he establishes a margin for the remainder of the page.

Whatever reason he had for doing so, it certainly doesnâ??t appear to be related to a â??change in the method of compositionâ?, nor does it militate against the conclusion of dittography. Vogel seems to be grasping at straws with this line of reasoning. It sounds like little more than thesis-led speculation.

What I have questioned is your assumption that it was unintentionally copied twice from the same MS Q. You are assuming a dittograph can only occur one way.

While it is true that not all repetitions constitute dittography, I am quite confident that I understand the conditions that must be met. First, there must be a repetition of something. Secondly, there must be a homoioteleuton, or a common ending of a sentence or line or paragraph. This homoioteleuton must â??bookendâ? the dittograph. These conditions are clearly met with this case of dittography.

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

As you recall, you quoted Bill's theory, apparently because he has a PhD and you wanted to project as much authority as you could.

Did I? Vogel is apparently wearing his mind-reading hat again. And if I wanted to â??â??project as much authorityâ?â? as I could, why then did I make it perfectly clear that I did not agree with his theory? There is a strange inconsistency to be seen in someone who cites a PhD to â??â??project authorityâ?â? and then promptly disagrees with the opinion of that same â??â??authority.â?â?

I said "apparently", because you were using both Hamblin and Skousen against Metcalfe, who you said only worked in computer software. You were clearly making an argument from authority. To argue that you weren't because that would contradict something else you said carries little weight since you are admitting that you did contradict Hamblin's theory even though you tried to use it, which seems quite unreasonable in itself. My recent post dwelt just on that issue.

You are well-known for adopting contradicting theories and using them simultaneously against a position you don't like.

I understand that Vogel believes, in his semantically-challenged world of group hallucinations and tin plates, that I have adopted contradictory theories. Vogel has consistently struggled in his attempts to distinguish the two very different concepts of â??â??posited possibilitiesâ?â? and â??â??adopted theoriesâ?â?. Of course, this is the same â??â??historianâ?â? who is â??â??well-knownâ?â? for having manifest a pronounced inability to distinguish between â??â??posited possibilitiesâ?â? and â??â??established factsâ?â?.

Why the "You-Too" fallacy? Is it because you can't deny you use the methodology I described?

So, your position is that the variants between the two paragraphs are scribal errors. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Yes, that is my position. And lest I miss out on an opportunity to â??â??project as much authorityâ?â? as I can, I might also remind our readers that it happens to be the position of Professor Skousen, as cited above.

Well, it took some work, but at least now you can preface your arguments with a scholar ("one of the most highly-respected textual critics in the country") who actually agrees with you.

I have said from the outset that I think Brent makes an exception for this last paragraph.

I am uncertain what is meant by â??â??makes an exception.â?â? But I do understand why this dittographic paragraph presents such profound problems for the Metcalfe theory.

Meaning the change in plan signaled a possible change in method of composition, by which I mean from dictation to copying.

You think the repetition of the last paragraph is in keeping with the entire MS. But that's an assumption on your part. I have pointed to the loss of margin and lack of characters as an indication that this last portion departs from the plan of the previous material.

The â??â??loss of marginâ?â? is not something unique to this page of the manuscript. On page 2, Williams begins at the edge of the sheet, and then, after writing four lines, he establishes a margin for the remainder of the page.

His lines are not uniform because he didn't draw the margin in with pencil, as was sometime done by JS's scribes. The edge of his writing sometimes bows. It is also possible that in beginning a new page he forgot to keep a margin. But in the last repeated paragraph the difference is pronounced and unmistakable. Moving to the edge after 3 lines was quite intentional.

The margin issue is tied to the lack of characters, which you neglected to answer. Williams makes no provision for adding the last character, because continues writing on the same line instead of beginning a new paragraph.

Whatever reason he had for doing so, it certainly doesnâ??â??t appear to be related to a â??â??change in the method of compositionâ?â?, nor does it militate against the conclusion of dittography. Vogel seems to be grasping at straws with this line of reasoning. It sounds like little more than thesis-led speculation.

You are the one with the thesis and motivation to divorce JS from these MSS. If I'm grasping for straws, why can't you recognize the change in method of composition? Why didn't you answer the part of my question about the characters?

What I have questioned is your assumption that it was unintentionally copied twice from the same MS Q. You are assuming a dittograph can only occur one way.

While it is true that not all repetitions constitute dittography, I am quite confident that I understand the conditions that must be met. First, there must be a repetition of something. Secondly, there must be a homoioteleuton, or a common ending of a sentence or line or paragraph. This homoioteleuton must â??â??bookendâ?â? the dittograph. These conditions are clearly met with this case of dittography.

You missed my point. My point was a dittograph can have more than one explanation. Try responding to the part of my statement you left out.

You are assuming a dittograph can only occur one way. The previous portion can be from dictation, while the repeated paragraph could come from copying from MS #1 (as it was dictated by a scribe or JS) or MS Q.

[Bill Hamblin]

My purpose has been achieved with Bill's withdrawal of his theory.

I did? I must have missed that part of the discussion. What theory did I withdraw? Sorry, you've achieved nothing.

I still think the positing of a Q manuscript behind the extant BOA manuscripts best explains the data.

I still think it is possible that the variants between par 1 and par 2 can be explained by reference to MS Q.

I also think, and have always thought, that it is also possible that the differences between par 1 and par 2 can be explained as scribal errors.

Furthermore, I think it is equally possible that the differences can be explained by a combination of variants in Q and scribal errors.

Without Q, there is no way to know.

However, I think it is extremely unlikely the differences between par 1 and par 2 can be explained as a recopying of par 2 from an oral dictation from another MS, which is apparently the Vogel/Metcalfe theory. This makes absolutely no sense at all.

So, which theory have I withdrawn? I still agree with Hauglid, Schryver, Skousen. I still disagree with Vogel and Metcalfe.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

I didn't mean to misrepresent your position. I thought you were backing off your theory when you saw how weak it was and offered your "clarification".

[Bill Hamblin]

I thought you were backing off your theory when you saw how weak it was and offered your "clarification".

And to think I thought you were backing off your position when you saw how weak it was!

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

And to think I thought you were backing off your position when you saw how weak it was!

I don't have a position. I'm only defending Brent's thesis against what I think is unfair criticism.

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't have a position. I'm only defending Brent's thesis against what I think is unfair criticism.

I get it now; you are backing off Brent's position when you saw how weak it was!

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

I get it now; you are backing off Brent's position when you saw how weak it was!

I'm not the one simultaneously proposing two conflicting views. Aside from this last paragraph in MS #2, Will has not produced a "definitive dittograph" as he promised. I see no need to back off Brent's thesis. The positive evidence Brent gave for dictation has not been explained.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm not the one simultaneously proposing two conflicting views. Aside from this last paragraph in MS #2, Will has not produced a "definitive dittograph" as he promised. I see no need to back off Brent's thesis. The positive evidence Brent gave for dictation has not been explained.

You have obviously not understood my position, nor have you paid attention to what Will has said. Alas.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

You have obviously not understood my position, nor have you paid attention to what Will has said. Alas.

I think I do, and I used your's against his to show just how weak it was. I think Will's theory is the more defensible of the two, and he should have ignored yours.

[Chris Smith]

At some point in our conversation on this topic, the question arose whether as of 1 March 1842 (when the first installment of the BoA was published), Joseph Smith had translated past Abr. 2:18. The evidence would seem to indicate that he had not, but I believe it was Will Schryver who questioned that conclusion. He promised to post additional information on the subject, but unfortunately has not done so.

I was reading an essay by John Gee today, in which he notes that the William I. Appleby journal, in an entry dated 5 May 1841, reproduced sections of the BoA. He does not indicate which sections. I unfortunately don't have access to this journal, but if anyone else does, it might help us nail down the extent to which the BoA had been translated at that time. I'm also curious which, if any, of the translation manuscripts Appleby was copying from.

-CK

[Dan Vogel]

At some point in our conversation on this topic, the question arose whether as of 1 March 1842 (when the first installment of the BoA was published), Joseph Smith had translated past Abr. 2:18. The evidence would seem to indicate that he had not, but I believe it was Will Schryver who questioned that conclusion. He promised to post additional information on the subject, but unfortunately has not done so.

I was reading an essay by John Gee today, in which he notes that the William I. Appleby journal, in an entry dated 5 May 1841, reproduced sections of the BoA. He does not indicate which sections. I unfortunately don't have access to this journal, but if anyone else does, it might help us nail down the extent to which the BoA had been translated at that time. I'm also curious which, if any, of the translation manuscripts Appleby was copying from.

CK,

I consulted with my good friend Mike Marquardt on this, and he shared with me his transcription of the pages from Wm Appleby's journal that deal with the BOA. Marquardt tells me that Appleby began this journal in 1848, possibly recording the part about seeing the mummies and papyri from an earlier record or journal. His viewing is dated 5 May 1841.

Appleby copied into his journal Abra. 1:15-31. He apparently did this from the Times and Seasons text and not from any MS copy. He even follows the TS text by numbering the paragraphs 5-9.

As you know, the BOA was published in the TS in two installments:

Times and Seasons, 1 March 1842. Issue #9. Abraham 1:1-2:18.

Times and Seasons, 15 March 1842. Issue #10. Abraham 2:19-5:21.

Joseph Smith dictated the text for issue #10 on March 8-9, 1842. Willard Richards wrote in the Book of the Law of the Lord for March 8, 1842:

"Commenced Translating from the Book of Abraham, for 10 No of the Times and Seasons"

[and for March 9, 1842:]

"in the afternoon continued the Translation of the Book of Abraham"

--(see Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, 2:367).

I hope this helps.

[Chris Smith]

CK,

I consulted with my good friend Mike Marquardt on this, and he shared with me his transcription of the pages from Wm Appleby's journal that deal with the BOA. Marquardt tells me that Appleby began this journal in 1848, possibly recording the part about seeing the mummies and papyri from an earlier record or journal. His viewing is dated 5 May 1841.

Appleby copied into his journal Abra. 1:15-31. He apparently did this from the Times and Seasons text and not from any MS copy. He even follows the TS text by numbering the paragraphs 5-9.

As you know, the BOA was published in the TS in two installments:

Times and Seasons, 1 March 1842. Issue #9. Abraham 1:1-2:18.

Times and Seasons, 15 March 1842. Issue #10. Abraham 2:19-5:21.

Joseph Smith dictated the text for issue #10 on March 8-9, 1842. Willard Richards wrote in the Book of the Law of the Lord for March 8, 1842:

I hope this helps.

Dan,

Thanks for doing this. The entry from the JS journal is especially helpful.

I just ran across some interesting comments from John Gee. Gee says that KEPA 4 "appears to be the printer's manuscript for the first installment of the Book of Abraham, as it covers exactly the same material, matches the printed edition (even in paragraphing), and is in the handwriting of one of Joseph's scribes at the time." But on the previous page, he has a chart that shows KEPA 4 covering Abr. 1:1-3:26. He tentatively dates the manuscript to Feb. 1842 (but puts a question mark after it in parentheses). If he's right, this would seem to indicate that Joseph had progressed as far as 3:26 prior to the first T&S installment. I have no idea, however, how to discern whether or not he's right.

-CK

[Dan Vogel]

Dan,

Thanks for doing this. The entry from the JS journal is especially helpful.

I just ran across some interesting comments from John Gee. Gee says that KEPA 4 "appears to be the printer's manuscript for the first installment of the Book of Abraham, as it covers exactly the same material, matches the printed edition (even in paragraphing), and is in the handwriting of one of Joseph's scribes at the time." But on the previous page, he has a chart that shows KEPA 4 covering Abr. 1:1-3:26. He tentatively dates the manuscript to Feb. 1842 (but puts a question mark after it in parentheses). If he's right, this would seem to indicate that Joseph had progressed as far as 3:26 prior to the first T&S installment. I have no idea, however, how to discern whether or not he's right.

-CK

BOA MS #4 is in the handwriting of Willard Richards, who (according to his own journal) became a clerk and a compiler of JS history on 13 Dec. 1841. A photograph of page 1 was reproduced in Nibley's article in BYU Studies, Summer 1971, p. 389. Gee's dating perhaps follows the a file notation on back ("1841") in the handwriting of Thomas Bullock, who didn't become a scribe until 1843, which perhaps explains Gee's question mark.

All we know is that the installment for TS No. 10 was done days before publication, but exactly where the dividing line occurs between what was translated before 9-10 March 1842 and what was translated on those days is anyone's guess. I'm not sure what Gee's point is.