Jump to content

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers Or KEP


gtaggart

Recommended Posts

But do you deny that the Williams and Parrish manuscripts were obviously written in a single â??translationâ? session?

I do deny it. I don't see why we should expect any "seams" between translation sessions to be evident. Assuming the task was taken up by the same scribe using the same pen and ink, I don't imagine you'd be able to tell where he had stopped for the evening.

-CK

Link to comment

I do deny it. I don't see why we should expect any "seams" between translation sessions to be evident. Assuming the task was taken up by the same scribe using the same pen and ink, I don't imagine you'd be able to tell where he had stopped for the evening.

-CK

Well, it's a good thing your opinion on the matter doesn't carry as much weight as that of the professional text analysts.

Their conclusion concurs with my own -- and I think any objective observer would look at Parrish's Ms. #3 and immediately see that it is obviously a document written from start to finish with no breaks in between. Furthermore, I believe that the conclusion is implicit in the Metcalfe theory that these are transcripts of an oral dictation.

Because, you see, the problem you have if you want to suggest that the document represents multiple translation sessions is that you have to place Joseph Smith, Frederick G. Williams, and Warren Parrish together for each of them. And, unfortunately, the historical record won't support that thesis.

At any rate, I've finally chosen to commence a thread in the Pundits Forum on the topic of the historical considerations surrounding the KEP and Book of Abraham. You can disagree with me there if you are so inclined.

Link to comment

Well, it's a good thing your opinion on the matter doesn't carry as much weight as that of the professional text analysts.

Their conclusion concurs with my own -- and I think any objective observer would look at Parrish's Ms. #3 and immediately see that it is obviously a document written from start to finish with no breaks in between.

William,

What or who is a professional text analyst? Which of Hauglid's credentials makes him such a professional analyst? What textual seams has he looked for in the text whose absence allows us to conclude positively against mulitple translation sessions? Who are the unnamed others you're referring to when you speak of "analysts" in the plural? How can you say with any certainty what an objective observer would see when you admittedly are an apologist and therefore not objective?

-CK

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...