Brian Hauglid Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Dear Brent,Your offline persona is anything but boastful.Your perception of my online "boasting" or "posturing" is misguided. After two years of research it's actually confidence you're seeing.Our conversation on the BoAbr at FAIR 2006 was among the most exhilarating that I had, had in years. I felt that I met a kindred spirit who shared my elation in participating in the text-critical journey. I want to believe that this is still the case.I believe it can still be the case. That's why I'm trying to get a discussion going with you on the subject of this thread.You needn't take my word for it, Brian. With your permission, I'm willing to post your own appraisal of your FAIR 2006 presentation from the several emails that you sent to meâ??does that meet with your approval?No need to publish my musings, which will inevitably be more fodder for misinterpretation and derailing of the topic at hand. However, it is worthy to note that those initial emails actually helped to formulate the arguments and improve the research. Of course, through continued research my reflections have evolved and likely do not precisely match those of almost two years ago.Yes, your FAIR 2006 presentation is largely obsolete, irrespective of the "fluxive nature of academia."Your special pleading here doesn't make it so. However, you might more correctly say that my 2006 presentation was a prolegomena to the mss. Maturity of the research has certainly created more clarification and new avenues of understanding. Thus the "fluxive nature of academia" focuses, refines, and improves the project.Will has presented his transcripts as nothing other than faithful reproductions of the text. ("[A] diplomatic transcription"? I have no idea what you're talking about, Brian. Will's error needn't involve diplomatics at all.)In document editing "diplomatic transcriptions" employ more detailed coding of all anomalies in the text (canceling text, overwrites, ink flow, retouching, etc.). There are also less detailed transcriptions, which are much more reader friendly. I'm sure your transcriptions are more the former than the latter. So, what I meant was your more detailed transcriptions are not going to jive with Will's less detailed transcriptions. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear on this.That you seem to rely on Will's appraisal of things doesn't bode well for your project.That you seem to think I rely on Will doesn't bode well for your understanding of my project.And you accuse me of "a cat and mouse game"? (My goodnessâ??you answering for Will; Will answering for youâ??I don't know where the one ends and the other begins.)No accusation intended. You asked me to comment on Will's transcription. I did. End of story. Please don't entangle me in your vitriol of Will. Your parenthetical foray into speculations is not supportable and quite unbecoming and irrelevant to the task at hand.Will started this thread; the onus is on him to present an accurate transcription.No, you challenged Will's analysis and transcription. The onus is now on you to present your analysis and transcription.Perhaps now we can move on with a more fruitful discussion. I sincerely look forward to your thoughts on Abr. 1:12.Best,Brian
Brian Hauglid Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Really? You don't find it even the least bit fragmentary or redundant? Look at verse 3:It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.Pay particular attention to the use of "even" and "or" to introduce appositives here. Joseph appears to be offering us a veritable list of several alternative translations of just a few Egyptian character components.And how, if you don't mind sharing, did you arrive at this conclusion? I am quite thoroughly persuaded, on the basis of the historical and textual evidence, that the relevant portions of the alphabet and grammar manuscripts in fact predated Abr. 1:1-3.Chris,Would you mind starting another thread on this topic? I'm hoping Brent and I can continue discussing Abr. 1:12.Thanks,Brian
Chris Smith Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Would you mind starting another thread on this topic? I'm hoping Brent and I can continue discussing Abr. 1:12.Sure. I think I'll actually just let my comments stand, for now. I have about ten thousand pages to read in preparation for comprehensive exams next semester, so I don't have time to really dig into this subject right now anyway. Even so, I shall follow your and Brent's discussion of Abr. 1:12 with interest. (Hopefully it can be conducted with a minimum of animus and irrelevant point-scoring.)
Brent Metcalfe Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Hi Brian,From one old guy to another, I admire your stamina (you're an hour ahead of me). Your perception of my online "boasting" or "posturing" is misguided. After two years of research it's actually confidence you're seeing.So, you've achieved Walter Brennan-hood (you no doubt recall his catchphrase from The Guns of Will Sonnett: "No brag, just fact."Great trait for a gunslinger, not so good for a text critic.I believe it can still be the case. That's why I'm trying to get a discussion going with you on the subject of this thread.I'm not sure how to harmonize your comments with your lack of response to my email message inviting you to discuss this issue online, or your previous assertion that you were abandoning this thread.No need to publish my musings, which will inevitably be more fodder for misinterpretation and derailing of the topic at hand. However, it is worthy to note that those initial emails actually helped to formulate the arguments and improve the research. Of course, through continued research my reflections have evolved and likely do not precisely match those of almost two years ago.If you'd send me your original PowerPoint of your FAIR 2006 presentation, I'll gladly discuss the numerous assertions that you made that I consider unsound.Your special pleading here doesn't make it so. However, you might more correctly say that my 2006 presentation was a prolegomena to the mss. Maturity of the research has certainly created more clarification and new avenues of understanding. Thus the "fluxive nature of academia" focuses, refines, and improves the project.Then why the objection to my citation of your FAIR 2006 presentation when I had no idea what constituted your latest reading? My mom always said I was gifted, but I'm no clairvoyant.In all candor, your FAIR 2006 presentation made more than a few outlandish claims about the BoAbr manuscripts that are not sustained by the documentary evidence.In document editing "diplomatic transcriptions" employ more detailed coding of all anomalies in the text (canceling text, overwrites, ink flow, retouching, etc.). There are also less detailed transcriptions, which are much more reader friendly. I'm sure your transcriptions are more the former than the latter. So, what I meant was your more detailed transcriptions are not going to jive with Will's less detailed transcriptions. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear on this.No need for the lecture, Brian. Let me repeat: Will's transcription error has nothing to do with "detailed coding of all anomalies in the text (canceling text, overwrites, ink flow, retouching, etc.)"â??don't you agree?That you seem to think I rely on Will doesn't bode well for your understanding of my project.I... guess?No accusation intended. You asked me to comment on Will's transcription. I did. End of story. Please don't entangle me in your vitriol of Will. Your parenthetical foray into speculations is not supportable and quite unbecoming and irrelevant to the task at hand.So my effort to identify a common ground between the two of us was getting you "entangle[d]" in some "vitriol" with Will? (Go back and read the thread, Brian.) *good grief!*No, you challenged Will's analysis and transcription. The onus is now on you to present your analysis and transcription.I could say, "What tripe!" but I'll refrain. Will has made numerous claims about Abraham 1:12â??many of which I consider specious. Until either you or he presents an accurate transcription (plain text will suffice), I see no reason to comment further.My best,</brent> http://mormonscripturestudies.com(
Brian Hauglid Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Brent,(Brent Metcalfe) So, you've achieved Walter Brennan-hood (you no doubt recall his catchphrase from The Guns of Will Sonnett: "No brag, just fact." Great trait for a gunslinger, not so good for a text critic.I loved ole Walter Brennan. But this is hyperbole. Confidence is not synonymous with over confidence or certainty.(Brent Metcalfe) I'm not sure how to harmonize your comments with your lack of response to my email message inviting you to discuss this issue online, or your previous assertion that you were abandoning this thread.I thought it might be worth it to see if you would be willing revisit the topic.In all candor, your FAIR 2006 presentation made more than a few outlandish claims about the BoAbr manuscripts that are not sustained by the documentary evidence.This claim is, of course, predictable from your point of view. Will's transcription error has nothing to do with "detailed coding of all anomalies in the text (canceling text, overwrites, ink flow, retouching, etc.)"â??don't you agree?I... guess? . . . Until either you or he presents an accurate transcription (plain text will suffice), I see no reason to comment further.I do not agree with Will's transcription and here's why:Will's inaccurate transcription reads: "I will refer you the representation at the commencement of this record"It should read: "I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record"BTW: I did not cite the entire clause in my 2006 presentation. I did cite "that is" in Ms 2 as additional text contra the same cancelled text in Ms 3.Please forgive my misunderstanding of precisely what you were looking for in Will's transcription. I hope this answers your query.Shall we put past misunderstandings behind us and continue? I welcome your analysis of Abr. 1:12.Best to you.Brian
William Schryver Posted June 4, 2008 Author Posted June 4, 2008 I never attempted a â??transcriptionâ? that included what I consider to be the inserted phrase. The only â??transcriptionâ? I provided was one which specifically excluded the phrase:â?¦ and itcame to pass that the priests laid violence upon methat they might slay me also, as they did those virginsupon this alter, and that you might have a knowl-edge of this alter[New Egyptian character placed in margin]It was made after, the form of a bedsted â?¦
Brian Hauglid Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Hi Will,I never attempted a â??transcriptionâ? that included what I consider to be the inserted phrase.Apparently Brent must have believed the bolded text before your transcription was a transcription.Brian
William Schryver Posted June 4, 2008 Author Posted June 4, 2008 Hi Will,Apparently Brent must have believed the bolded text before your transcription was a transcription.BrianWell, I never even thought the alleged "transcription" was a transcription. I was just trying to paint for the reader a satisfactory picture of what the text looked like prior to the insertion.In the future, should I actually attempt a "transcription," I will be certain to label it accordingly, lest we spend another four pages of thread space wondering which nit is being picked by Professor Transcript.
Brent Metcalfe Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Hi Brian,Yes, let's put past misunderstandings behind us.Time permitting I'll post a few initial thoughts on the pericope later tonight or tomorrow night.I think it was Chris Smith who on another board referred to my comments about the accuracy of Will's transcription as a "game" to see whose transcription is best. That wasn't my intent at all, as I'll explain in my forthcoming post(s). Several factors are germane to recovering and assessing the text in BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2). The accuracy of the transcription is one of them.Other factors include those that I listed in a previous post:To move our discussion forward, perhaps we can find some common ground. Do you agree with the following statements?BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2) is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith scribe Frederick G. Williams.Williams' penmanship throughout ms. 1a (fldr. 2) is appreciably less uniform than his handwriting in several other documents (such as the Kirtland Revelation Book and Joseph Smith's diaries).Williams' handwriting in lines 1.37â??1.38 (ms. 1a [fldr. 2], p. 1) exhibits the same lack of uniformity as the handwriting in lines 1.33â??1.36, 1.39â??1.42.After Williams finished ms. 1a (fldr. 2) he modified punctuation and capitalization; we can be confident of this because the ink he used when emending the manuscript is darker than the ink he used in his initial transcription.The ink tone in lines 1.37â??1.38 is consistent with the ink tone in lines 1.33â??1.36, 1.39â??1.42, but not with the darker ink tone in Williams' later emendations.Williams intentionally drew the curved markâ??Will Schryver's (and your?) "parenthesis"â??in line 1.38.The ink tone of Williams' curved mark ("parenthesis") in line 1.38 is consistent with the ink tone in lines 1.33â??1.37, 1.39â??1.42, but not with the darker ink tone in Williams' later emendations.The parallel to lines 1.37â??1.38 in BoAbr ms. 1b (fldr. 3) was not (contra Will Schryver) a later emendation by Warren Parrish.And lastly, Will Schryver's transcription of BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), 1.37â??1.38 is inaccurate.If you disagree with any of these listed statements, please explain why (with supporting references).Determining common ground is invaluable for lucid communication, not merely an exercise in futility, and certainly not a cat and mouse game.Hi Will,Here is what you wrote:However, upon closer examination of the all-important KEPA Mss. #2 and #3, it becomes apparent that there is something quite unusual about Abraham 1:12. In KEPA Ms. #2, the phrase â?I will refer you the representation at the commencement of this record.â? is, in fact, a later interlineal insertion in the text.When you referenced BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2) (= "KEPA Ms. #2") and then placed the line in quotes, I had assumedâ??as I suspect many of your readers didâ??that you were quoting from the manuscript source that you cited.In any event, I'll discuss my transcription in my forthcoming post(s).My best,</brent> http://mormonscripturestudies.com(
gtaggart Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Hi Greg,Thanks for your reply.You're mistaken.I placed the "[et al.]" in brackets to indicate that it was an addition (based on Brian's update).You also wrote:Yes, you were wrong. The title of this thread is "Textual Variants At [sic] Abraham 1:12," so I have no idea which thread you're referring to.I was imprecise, and you're hiding behind the imprecision: Yes, the title of the thread is "Textual Variants," but textual variants based on what and according to whom? Why according various persons' interpretations of . . . are you ready for this? . . . the KEP.
Brent Metcalfe Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 Hi Brian,I'm occupied with multiple professional deadlines tonight, but I at least wanted to post my transcription of Abraham 1:12b in BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), 1.36bâ??1.38, which differs from both your transcription and that of Will's.BoAbr ms.1a (fldr. 2), 1.36bâ??1.38[1.36b] . . . . . . . . . . . . . [...] and that you might have a knowl-[1.37] -edge of this alter I will refer you to the representation that is at the[1.38] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( commencement of this reccordMuch more to come...Hi Greg (a.k.a. gtaggart),I hope you don't mind if we move on to more substantive issues.Best regards,</brent> http://mormonscripturestudies.com(
Brian Hauglid Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 I'm occupied with multiple professional deadlines tonight, but I at least wanted to post my transcription of Abraham 1:12b in BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), 1.36bâ??1.38, which differs from both your transcription and that of Will's.BoAbr ms.1a (fldr. 2), 1.36bâ??1.38[1.36b] . . . . . . . . . . . . . [...] and that you might have a knowl-[1.37] -edge of this alter I will refer you to the representation that is at the[1.38] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( commencement of this reccordMuch more to come...Thanks Brent.Cheers,Brian
William Schryver Posted June 5, 2008 Author Posted June 5, 2008 BM:When you referenced BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2) (= "KEPA Ms. #2") and then placed the line in quotes, I had assumedâ??as I suspect many of your readers didâ??that you were quoting from the manuscript source that you cited.Clearly there was a misunderstanding coupled with my own imprecision in citing the phrase in question. Having just barely typed the phrase as it appears in the published text, and not being particularly interested in its details within the context of the sentence I was then typing â?? a sentence that clearly was not intended as a â??transcriptionâ? â?? I did omit the words â??that is.â? However, since I correctly quoted the phrase in question in the paragraph which immediately follows, you should have had no cause to suspect that I did not have a correct knowledge of what is actually written on the page in question. Unless, of course, your sole interest was in scoring some cheap polemical points. But then Iâ??m sure you would never stoop to such a thing. Here is a portion of the succeeding paragraph from my original post (emphasis mine):â?¦ the scribe, apparently recognizing that he could not insert the full phrase intended in the space following the parenthesis, commenced writing â??I will refer you â?¦â? further to the left and even further above the parenthesis â?? the word â??willâ? necessarily rising to avoid the top of the parenthesis. He then proceeds to write the remainder of the line to â??that is at the â?¦â? and then finishes the phrase by starting with â??commencement â?¦â? immediately after the parenthesis.Itâ??s quite obvious that I was aware that the line reads â??that is at the â?¦â?.In any case, in response to your statement that:Several factors are germane to recovering and assessing the text in BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2). The accuracy of the transcription is one of them.Here is my transcription of the relevant pericope:You will note that I have chosen to number the lines of the insertion as 37a and 37b. Here is the relevant portion of the document to give our readers a better conception of the scenario in question:Permit me to also to respond to your list of â??factors.â? (Your factors in red; my comments in blue.)BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2) is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith scribe Frederick G. Williams. I concur.-Williams' penmanship throughout ms. 1a (fldr. 2) is appreciably less uniform than his handwriting in several other documents (such as the Kirtland Revelation Book and Joseph Smith's diaries). I concur, with qualification: his handwriting on page 3 is inexplicably more uniform than in the remainder of the document.-Williams' handwriting in lines 1.37â??1.38 (ms. 1a [fldr. 2], p. 1) exhibits the same lack of uniformity as the handwriting in lines 1.33â??1.36, 1.39â??1.42. I perceive a significant difference in the handwriting of the â??insertionâ? and the handwriting in the surrounding text. I will elaborate below on one particular aspect of the differences I see.-After Williams finished ms. 1a (fldr. 2) he modified punctuation and capitalization; we can be confident of this because the ink he used when emending the manuscript is darker than the ink he used in his initial transcription. I concur.-The ink tone in lines 1.37â??1.38 is consistent with the ink tone in lines 1.33â??1.36, 1.39â??1.42, but not with the darker ink tone in Williams' later emendations. I think there are some appreciable differences in ink tone between the insertion and the surrounding text.-Williams intentionally drew the curved markâ??Will Schryver's (and your?) "parenthesis"â??in line 1.38. I continue to maintain that the mark is a parenthesis, and that it was written first â?? after Williams had written the line below, but before he wrote â??I will refer â?¦â? Brian, if I am not mistaken, disagrees with some key elements of my analysis. For example, I don't believe he considers the "curved line" a parenthesis -- but rather a scribal indicator of some sort. I'm sure he will elaborate in the course of his own posts to the thread.-The ink tone of Williams' curved mark ("parenthesis") in line 1.38 is consistent with the ink tone in lines 1.33â??1.37, 1.39â??1.42, but not with the darker ink tone in Williams' later emendations. Iâ??m not sure. I think only professional handwriting/ink analysis can answer this question.-The parallel to lines 1.37â??1.38 in BoAbr ms. 1b (fldr. 3) was not (contra Will Schryver) a later emendation by Warren Parrish. Iâ??m not sure what you mean by a â??later emendation.â? If you mean the strikeout was not later, I disagree. Iâ??ve never meant to suggest that the entire phrase was a later emendation.-And lastly, Will Schryver's transcription of BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), 1.37â??1.38 is inaccurate. I will concede this point with some protest â?? I was not, as I have made clear â?? attempting a â??transcription.â? Nevertheless, if weâ??re keeping score, then both Schryver and Metcalfe have a â??transcription errorâ? point against them. Now may we move on to more substantive issues?My summary analysis (tentative) of the textual history of this pericope is as follows:The interlineal insertion apparently commenced with a parenthesis, the bottom of which overlays the cross of the â??tâ? and the ascender of the â??hâ? in the word â??theâ? preceding â??form of a bedsted.â? Then the scribe, apparently recognizing that he could not insert the full phrase intended in the space following the parenthesis, commenced writing â??I will refer you â?¦â? further to the left and even further above the parenthesis â?? the word â??willâ? necessarily rising to avoid the top of the parenthesis. He then proceeds to write the remainder of the line to â??that is at the â?¦â? and then finishes the phrase by starting with â??commencement â?¦â? immediately after the parenthesis. There is no closing parenthesis.One of my observations concerning the differences in the handwriting between the insertion and the surrounding text was:The size of the letters in the entire phrase is, on average, less than 70% the size of the letters above and below the insertion, thus reinforcing the conclusion that the scribe was consciously attempting to fit the phrase into a space circumscribed by lines above and below. Below are five examples that illustrate this phenomenon. Note that the letters/words are reduced in size on the both the vertical and horizontal axes â?? suggesting that the scribe was conscious of the space limitation from left to right and from top to bottom.(The first example in each pair is from the insertion, the second example is from characters in the immediate vicinity of the insertion, with the exception of the second example of â??recordâ? which is taken from page 3 of the manuscript.)Now I am anxious that our readers understand that, unless there were already a line written BELOW this insertion, there would be no need for the scribe to attempt to squeeze this insertion into a limited space. The available space must have already been demarked by the succeeding line, otherwise the scribe would have perceived no need to significantly decrease the size of the letters/words in the inserted phrase.
Chris Smith Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 The available space must have already been demarked by the succeeding line, otherwise the scribe would have perceived no need to significantly decrease the size of the letters/words in the inserted phrase.Or, as I suggested in my analysis, it could have merely been demarked by the succeeding Egyptian character.
William Schryver Posted June 5, 2008 Author Posted June 5, 2008 Or, as I suggested in my analysis, it could have merely been demarked by the succeeding Egyptian character.I consider this suggestion unpersuasive. I think it is also apparent that "commencement" consciously rises to avoid the ascender of the "b" in "bedsted," reinforcing the notion that the line below was already present.Of course, if it is confirmed that the parenthesis overwrites the "h" below it, then we will have proof positive. I think we should know the answer to that question by the end of the week . . .
Chris Smith Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 I think it is also apparent that "commencement" consciously rises to avoid the ascender of the "b" in "bedsted," reinforcing the notion that the line below was already present.I see no reason to assume that. "Commencement" does not rise noticeably more than the rest of the insertion. It is as likely that the "b" in bedstead fills the space available. In fact, the vertical compression of "It was made after, the form"-- most notably of the "t" and "h" in "the" and of the "f" in "form"-- suggests that the insertion had already been made and the scribe was deliberately trying to avoid overwriting it.-Chris
William Schryver Posted June 5, 2008 Author Posted June 5, 2008 CS:"Commencement" does not rise noticeably more than the rest of the insertion. It is as likely that the "b" in bedstead fills the space available. In fact, the vertical compression of "It was made after, the form"-- most notably of the "t" and "h" in "the" and of the "f" in "form"-- suggests that the insertion had already been made and the scribe was deliberately trying to avoid overwriting it.I think your imagination and desire to defend a flawed proposition has deleteriously impacted your usual common sense."Vertical Compression"?I'm afraid your assertion has no merit. Here are examples of the instances of "the" and "form" that you argue to be "vertically compressed," immediately followed by instances of "the" and "from" from nearby areas of the text. The lower red lines demark a common point in each word: in the case of "the", the line marks the mid-point of the "h". In the case of "form", the line marks the mid-point of the "f". The upper red lines demark the height of the letters you claim to be shorter than usual. As can be readily seen, there is no appreciable height difference between the words you claim to be "vertically compressed" and corresponding words in the nearby text.
William Schryver Posted June 5, 2008 Author Posted June 5, 2008 Sometimes, as they say, a picture paints a thousand words. The simple act of scoring lines to indicate the plane upon which each of these lines has been written illustrates quite eloquently that we are dealing here with an insertion.
Chris Smith Posted June 5, 2008 Posted June 5, 2008 I think your imagination and desire to defend a flawed proposition has deleteriously impacted your usual common sense.Alas, my common sense is too repressed to prevent me from indulging my imagination for at least one more post. I have prepared for your viewing pleasure a catalog of clippings from the image you provided (which of course is the only one, besides the microfilm, that I have to work with at the present time). These are all the cases of an initial "th", blown up in every case to 300% so that the scale is preserved.First we have the instances from the insertion, which you have argued are compressed.Next we have the one I am arguing is compressed:And finally we have 7 (presumably) regular-sized instances from the preceding paragraph.Unless I've completely lost my sanity, the instance in question is not a great deal taller than the "compressed" handwriting of the insertion, but is substantially shorter than the other initial "th" instances in the image you provided. There are no instances of an initial "f" in your image besides "form", so I can't provide further evidence as to whether that one is compressed or not. I should point out, however, that it is clearly the shortest even of the instances you clipped in order to rebut me.Sometimes, as they say, a picture paints a thousand words. The simple act of scoring lines to indicate the plane upon which each of these lines has been written illustrates quite eloquently that we are dealing here with an insertion.I suppose this is my cue to remind you again that neither Brent nor I are denying that this is an insertion. We are merely disputing your proposed timeframe of its insertion.-Chris
William Schryver Posted June 6, 2008 Author Posted June 6, 2008 CS:Unless I've completely lost my sanity â?¦Sanity? Well, that all depends on your standards. Alas, my common sense is too repressed to prevent me from indulging my imagination for at least one more post.Maybe you should have restrained yourself. Because taking images from the large extract I posted (which was resized considerably smaller than the single letter/word extracts I had previously posted) and using them to compare against images that have no basis for that comparison does, in fact, do violence to common sense -- not to mention the validity of your evidentiary survey. At least that's what I understand you to have done. If I have misunderstood, then perhaps you will elaborate.In any case, as my previous demonstrations establish, there is no appreciable difference between the height of the letters manifest in the examples you gave and the other â??regular-sizedâ? examples I matched against them. And, the letters/words in the insertion are, demonstrably so, considerably smaller than the surrounding text. Good grief, the naked eye alone quickly attests that the letters and spacing of the insertion are obviously smaller!Frankly, the notion that the scribe perceived some horizontal line proceeding from the allegedly previously-written Egyptian character, and modified his writing of the insertion to consciously avoid said hypothetical line, is â?¦ well â?¦ not a very persuasive argument. At least in my judgment.Furthermore, Iâ??m not sure I understand the motivation that you (and Metcalfe?) presumably have for contending so resolutely against the conclusion that this phrase was, in fact, inserted after the scribe had proceeded to the subsequent lines on the page. I canâ??t see how it threatens the â??simultaneous dictationâ? theory to any appreciable degree. And Iâ??m rather confident that just about every qualified text critic would look at this evidence and almost immediately pronounce it an obvious case of secondary insertion.Oh, well. Iâ??m sure you have your reasons . . ....Edit: You wrote:I should point out, however, that it is clearly the shortest even of the instances you clipped in order to rebut me.I will consent that the descenders of the "f" examples are somewhat longer than the "f" in "form". But you are suggesting that the ascender in "form" is shorter. It is not. And that's the whole point, isn't it?
Chris Smith Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Because taking images from the large extract I posted (which was resized considerably smaller than the single letter/word extracts I had previously posted) and using them to compare against images that have no basis for that comparison does, in fact, do violence to common sense -- not to mention the validity of your evidentiary survey. At least that's what I understand you to have done. If I have misunderstood, then perhaps you will elaborate.ALL of my clippings were from the large image you posted, and have been enlarged EXACTLY 300%. So to say there's no basis for comparison is to misunderstand what I did. Kevin posted the following image over at MDB:I followed Kevin's post with the following reply:I think your image expresses fairly well the point I was trying to make. I did notice that, at least from the microfilm copy, the last few lines on the page appear to be written in smaller handwriting than the preceding paragraph, and in fact line 40 (second from the bottom) includes an instance of "the" that is of comparable size to the one in question. This, despite the fact that there is no obvious reason for it to be "compressed". My opinion is that, like the instance on line 39, the instance on line 40 is compressed. But the compression on line 40 was unconscious rather than deliberate. Perhaps the following image well help (crappy though it is). The purple boxes denote text that I think was deliberately compressed. The red boxes denote text where I think the scribe unintentionally/unconsciously continued to write in smaller lettering even though there was no obvious reason or need to do so. You'll notice that the red box on line 40 (second from the bottom) includes an instance of "the". On the whole, the text in the red boxes is less compressed than the text in the purple boxes, but is also not as spacious or loopy as the unboxed text. (I hope that made sense.)Frankly, the notion that the scribe perceived some horizontal line proceeding from the allegedly previously-written Egyptian character, and modified his writing of the insertion to consciously avoid said hypothetical line, is … well … not a very persuasive argument. At least in my judgment.My handwriting isn't very neat, and I am not unlike Williams in that my writing sometimes strays upward or downward, gradually changes sizes, etc. And yet, if I were juxtaposing English text with margin characters the way Williams was, I would do exactly what you described: imagine a horizontal line from the character across the page, and modify my writing so as not to violate the invisible line. In my opinion, only a total slob would let the text and character get completely out of alignment! So if you don't find this argument persuasive, I can draw only one conclusion... Furthermore, I’m not sure I understand the motivation that you (and Metcalfe?) presumably have for contending so resolutely against the conclusion that this phrase was, in fact, inserted after the scribe had proceeded to the subsequent lines on the page. I can’t see how it threatens the “simultaneous dictation” theory to any appreciable degree. And I’m rather confident that just about every qualified text critic would look at this evidence and almost immediately pronounce it an obvious case of secondary insertion.One major reason I have drawn the conclusion I have is that when this insertion is taken in the larger scope of the manuscript evidence, neither visual copying nor simultaneous dictation can make much sense of it if we take it as a later insertion. The model I proposed earlier in this thread does make sense of it, I think, and quite handily at that.Another reason is that I find some of Brent's reasoning quite persuasive. I can see his point about ink flow, and that the ink color is not appreciably different is surely significant. Your reasoning, on the other hand, I generally have not found persuasive.I will consent that the descenders of the "f" examples are somewhat longer than the "f" in "form". But you are suggesting that the ascender in "form" is shorter. It is not.Sure it is. Here is your image:Notice that your horizontal red line is a bit misleading, because it does not line up exactly with the top of the first "f". But even in spite of that, the other two "f"s stick out over the top of the line. Granted, the height differential is not extraordinary. But the fact that the descender is substantially smaller and that the apex of the "f" seems to be formed differently (apparently by a single downward stroke as opposed to a short upward stroke followed by a downward stroke in the other instances) tend to confirm my conclusion that the size of this "f" is atypical of Williams' handwriting.In any case, it's not a big deal to me and I probably won't post much more on the subject, because I really need to do some reading. I think I've made my point as well as it can be made with the resources at my disposal anyway. So best to let it stand.-Chris
Brent Metcalfe Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Hi Brian,I'm yet again embroiled in professional tasks tonight and probably will be through the weekend. In the interim, I'd be interested in whether you agree or disagree with Will's responses to the items in my common ground list:BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2) is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith scribe Frederick G. Williams. I concur.-Williams' penmanship throughout ms. 1a (fldr. 2) is appreciably less uniform than his handwriting in several other documents (such as the Kirtland Revelation Book and Joseph Smith's diaries). I concur, with qualification: his handwriting on page 3 is inexplicably more uniform than in the remainder of the document.-Williams' handwriting in lines 1.37â??1.38 (ms. 1a [fldr. 2], p. 1) exhibits the same lack of uniformity as the handwriting in lines 1.33â??1.36, 1.39â??1.42. I perceive a significant difference in the handwriting of the â??insertionâ? and the handwriting in the surrounding text. I will elaborate below on one particular aspect of the differences I see.-After Williams finished ms. 1a (fldr. 2) he modified punctuation and capitalization; we can be confident of this because the ink he used when emending the manuscript is darker than the ink he used in his initial transcription. I concur.-The ink tone in lines 1.37â??1.38 is consistent with the ink tone in lines 1.33â??1.36, 1.39â??1.42, but not with the darker ink tone in Williams' later emendations. I think there are some appreciable differences in ink tone between the insertion and the surrounding text.-Williams intentionally drew the curved markâ??Will Schryver's (and your?) "parenthesis"â??in line 1.38. I continue to maintain that the mark is a parenthesis, and that it was written first â?? after Williams had written the line below, but before he wrote â??I will refer â?¦â? Brian, if I am not mistaken, disagrees with some key elements of my analysis. For example, I don't believe he considers the "curved line" a parenthesis -- but rather a scribal indicator of some sort. I'm sure he will elaborate in the course of his own posts to the thread.-The ink tone of Williams' curved mark ("parenthesis") in line 1.38 is consistent with the ink tone in lines 1.33â??1.37, 1.39â??1.42, but not with the darker ink tone in Williams' later emendations. Iâ??m not sure. I think only professional handwriting/ink analysis can answer this question.-The parallel to lines 1.37â??1.38 in BoAbr ms. 1b (fldr. 3) was not (contra Will Schryver) a later emendation by Warren Parrish. Iâ??m not sure what you mean by a â??later emendation.â? If you mean the strikeout was not later, I disagree. Iâ??ve never meant to suggest that the entire phrase was a later emendation.-And lastly, Will Schryver's transcription of BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), 1.37â??1.38 is inaccurate. I will concede this point with some protest â?? I was not, as I have made clear â?? attempting a â??transcription.â? Nevertheless, if weâ??re keeping score, then both Schryver and Metcalfe have a â??transcription errorâ? point against them. Now may we move on to more substantive issues?I look forward to your thoughtful response.Hi Will,Perhaps you missed my transcription?BoAbr ms.1a (fldr. 2), 1.36bâ??1.38[1.36b] . . . . . . . . . . . . . [...] and that you might have a knowl-[1.37] -edge of this alter I will refer you to the representation that is at the[1.38] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( commencement of this reccordAt the risk of incurring Chris' finger wagging for playing a "game," please note that your transcription contains multiple errors:For instance,â??On line 1.34, "pass" should be "pa
Chris Smith Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 At the risk of incurring Chris' finger wagging for playing a "game," It seems to have helped move the discussion forward, so I am unrepentant. Even if it does make me a board nanny and a spoilsport.
William Schryver Posted June 6, 2008 Author Posted June 6, 2008 BM:your transcription contains multiple errors:For instance,â??On line 1.34, "pass" should be "pa
Chris Smith Posted June 6, 2008 Posted June 6, 2008 Will,I'm pretty sure your "extra loop" in "accordingly" is part of the "a". It doesn't look like an extra "c" to me at all.Best,-Chris
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.