Textual Variants At Abraham 1:12

[Chris Smith]

Hi Will,

I'm sort of confused. You seem to acknowledge that manuscript # 3 is in fact an ancestor to the published copy of Abr. 1:1-2:2. (I would modify this to 1:4-2:2, and add that it seems pretty clear that manuscript # 2 is an ancestor of the published version of Abr. 2:3-2:6a.) Are you suggesting that although these texts are ancestors of the published version, they contain no emendations that were consequential to the final BoA text? And that they are thus a de facto cul-de-sac even though they are ancestral to the published text?

You also wrote,

I am of the opinion that almost all the emendations are secondary, including those that are commonly cited by critics as evidences of simultaneous dictation. This would suggest that the text prior to the emendations is the best reflection of the exemplar from which they were copied, that the participants in this project were privy to any modifications to the original text, and that their copies were made prior to any editing having occurred in that original text.

So, to clarify by way of example, the Q (exemplar) document at Abr. 1:16 originally read, "and this because their hearts are turned they have turned their hearts away from

me," with no strikeouts. This was copied mechanically into Manuscripts 2 and 3, the latter of which (accidentally?) left the "ed" off the end of "turned". Then the redundant phrase "their hearts are turned" was struck out in Q, and the same emendation was made in manuscripts # 2 and 3 in order to accord with Q. And all of this because we can't let the emendation in Manuscripts # 2 or 3 be primary, lest it imply either that JS was involved in the production of that manuscript or that the scribes made major editorial decisions reflected in the final published text?

Why use Manuscripts # 2 and 3 as the exemplars for the more polished Manuscript # 1 if in fact MS Q was more directly representative of the Prophet's intentions and had the full text of Abr. 1:4-2:6 consolidated in a single document? Why use them as exemplars if in fact they were merely part of the scribes' private project, albeit encouraged by Joseph?

-Chris

[Alf O'Mega]

When I read through my textual criticism books, I cannot identify recognized tests that establish a manuscript as having been â??dictated.â?

That's probably because most hand-produced manuscripts involved in textual transmission have been visual copies. Dictation just hasn't been a manuscript production method used widely enough to have warranted the sort of systematic study that visual copying has.

My mistake then. Iâ??m sure it is due to the fact that your perceptiveness is on the same level as his â?? perhaps even superior. In any case, I never should have doubted that you were more than capable of coming up with these great observations on your own. Please accept my sincere apologies.

Nothing to apologize for. I was once mistaken for a pseudonymous Metcalfe, and I considered the confusion entirely flattering.

[William Schryver]

Alf:

Nothing to apologize for. I was once mistaken for a pseudonymous Metcalfe, and I considered the confusion entirely flattering.

How ironic! I was once mistaken (by Metcalfe himself, if the reports I heard are to be believed) for a pseudonymous Lou Midgley. Before I really got to know Lou, I also considered the confusion entirely flattering. Now I'm simply honored.

Dictation just hasn't been a manuscript production method used widely enough to have warranted the sort of systematic study that visual copying has.

No doubt you are correct.

Nevertheless, if we can identify definitive visual copying errors in these manuscripts, it would seem to militate strongly against the simultaneous dictation theory. And if I can ever get around to it, I intend to start a new thread to revisit that very topic.

[William Schryver]

Chris,

I didnâ??t, until now, notice that you had snuck in a post between those of mine and Alfâ??s from earlier.

You wrote:

Are you suggesting that although these texts are ancestors of the published version, they contain no emendations that were consequential to the final BoA text? And that they are thus a de facto cul-de-sac even though they are ancestral to the published text?

My opinion, at present, is that these are NOT ancestral to the published text, but that they merely reflect the modifications that were made to the actual ancestor â?? a â??masterâ? copy, if you will. That said, I would not be bothered if Joseph Smith had been personally involved in the emendations we see, thus effectively placing these documents directly in the stemma from â??translationâ? to publication. In either case, I consider them copies. I am personally persuaded by the â??independent projectâ? explanation at this point in time. But I am open to another explanation that still assumes the fact that these documents are copies.

So, to clarify by way of example, the Q (exemplar) document at Abr. 1:16 originally read, "and this because their hearts are turned they have turned their hearts away from

me," with no strikeouts. This was copied mechanically into Manuscripts 2 and 3, the latter of which (accidentally?) left the "ed" off the end of "turned".

I perceive nothing extraordinarily unusual in that scenario. That the original act of copying consisted of an almost â??mechanicalâ? process is, to me, quite logical. In New Testament manuscript transmission, you frequently see all kinds of non-sensical stuff reproduced via a â??mechanicalâ? copy. And, in fact, when it comes to these two particular documents, it is the differences between the two, at emendation points like the â??their hearts are turnedâ? example you cite above, that I think the simultaneous dictation theory runs into some of its biggest obstacles.

Yes, I can see Parrish momentarily slipping into â??editorâ? mode when he was copying â??their hearts are turn â?¦â?, and neglecting to finish the last word of a part that he knows he will subsequently be striking out. But, for the moment, he simply continues in his mechanical copying process, only later to return and strike out the offending phrase.

And all of this because we can't let the emendation in Manuscripts # 2 or 3 be primary, lest it imply either that JS was involved in the production of that manuscript or that the scribes made major editorial decisions reflected in the final published text?

No. â??All of thisâ? because the emendations in both documents, almost without exceptions, attest properties consistent with secondary emendations. Plain and simple.

I am confident that forensic analysis will confirm that observation.

Why use Manuscripts # 2 and 3 as the exemplars for the more polished Manuscript # 1 if in fact MS Q was more directly representative of the Prophet's intentions and had the full text of Abr. 1:4-2:6 consolidated in a single document? Why use them as exemplars if in fact they were merely part of the scribes' private project, albeit encouraged by Joseph?

I donâ??t think Ms. #2 was used an an exemplar for the creation of Ms. #1. There are persuasive indications that Ms. #3 may have served as the exemplar for part of Ms. #1. That said, it is certainly plausible â?? given the existence of a Ms. Q â?? that it, instead, was the exemplar for Ms. #1.

Once again, even if these documents are cul-de-sac in nature, that does not imply that Phelps, Parrish, and Williams did not have full and easy access to all the other material associated with the Egyptian project, including the original â??translationâ? document, nor does it imply that Joseph Smith was completely divorced from what they were doing.

[Chris Smith]

Will,

I apologize for misunderstanding your argument. You made a brief but ambiguous remark in the middle of your post that sounded like a concession that MS 3 was the exemplar for part of MS 1, and I read the rest of your post through that lens.

I don’t think Ms. #2 was used an an exemplar for the creation of Ms. #1.

I think that MS 1 agrees with MS 2's first instance of 2:3-2:6 over against the second instance to a sufficient extent that the first instance seems a more likely source than a missing Q document that was the exemplar for both instances. (I say that, however, with some reservation, since the second instance is very sloppy and was evidently written with little regard for accuracy, perhaps under time constraints.) One of the more significant examples is the misspelling of "thee" as "the" in both the first instance and MS 1, but not in the second instance. There are a few points of agreement between the second instance and MS 1 over against the first instance, but these involve commas and capitalization; Parrish in MS 1 was editing punctuation and capitalization as he went and added a number of commas and decapitalized a number of letters over against both instances from Manuscript 2, so I suspect that where the second instance and MS 1 agree over against the first instance it's just coincidence. (Cf. Brent's extraordinarily helpful notes on this locus.)

There are two more reasons I suspect the first instance in MS 2 was the exemplar. First of all, "therefore he continued in Haran" in Manuscript 1 is included as part of the same paragraph as in MS 2's first instance rather than being set off by itself as in the second instance, and immediately after that point (where the first instance ends) there is a change of ink in Manuscript 1. This despite the fact that the Q manuscript evidently would have continued beyond this point. The redundancy in MS 2 offers a natural break that explains why Parrish stopped for a breather here when producing MS 1; presumably no similar break existed in MS Q. Secondly, MS 1 is quite clean up until the point where Manuscript 2 ends in mid-sentence, but right after that point Manuscript 1 gets messy and includes a number of emendations, probably indicating that this is original material. Of course, MS Q might have ended at the same point MS 2 did, so this isn't definitive. But there is a reason for MS 2 to end here, in mid-sentence. The scribe reached the end of his page (and, as I said before, was apparently in a hurry to finish; perhaps he had somewhere to be.) Why would a missing Q manuscript end in mid-sentence this way?

Best,

-Chris

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Brian,

To reiterate my request,

I've posted dozensâ??perhaps hundredsâ??of images supporting my text-critical analyses of the BoAbr manuscripts. If memory serves, you haven't posted a single image to buttress your analyses. So, it's your turn, Brian...

Please post an unaltered image from your highest-resolution color scans of the portion from BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2) that I've highlighted in this image:

The portion of the manuscript that I've highlighted measures ~1/8 square inch on the original. I trust that you can accommodate this meager request.

Have I asked too much?

Given my willingness to post numerous photographs to sustain my arguments, I'd hope that you could at least post one scanned imageâ??measuring ~1/2 the size of a US dime on the original manuscript.

If you plan on addressing the issue at your 2008 FAIR presentation, let us knowâ??I look forward to considering your evidence.

Best regards,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[stn9]

...The JS Papers Project goes well beyond Jessee, Ehat, and others....

The Joseph Smith Papers Project, while covering Jessee's work, will not address areas of research that Ehat and others have, at least not initially (there may be supplementary volumes that will). The Papers Project will not cover all of Joseph's teachings, only those which are part of his documentary collection. So, for instance, the accounts of the Prophet's sermons recorded by Wilford Woodruff, William Clayton, Howard Coray, Franklin, Levi and Willard Richards, etc., will not be included (unless they appear in Joseph Smith's diary or some other Joseph Smith owned or generated document). Descriptions of Joseph Smith's character and incidents from his life--stories of rescuing children from mud or his transfigured appearance while receiving a revelation--the type of devotional material that say Truman Madsen or Susan Easton Black or Mark McConkie have put together--will not appear in the Papers volumes (unless in snippets here and there in footnotes or introductory material for context or some other historical interest). The size of the Papers Project goes beyond anything anyone has undertaken, but the Project will not produce "The Everything Joseph Definitive Ultimate Collection."

[William Schryver]

This thread has been dormant for quite awhile now, but in the meantime research has continued on the last question considered â?? that of the parenthesis in the insertion having been written after the line below.

Metcalfe has argued against that assertion, even going so far as to claim he has replicated, with his own quill pen, the exact scenario we see at this locus. Assuming my understanding of his arguments is correct, he argues that the upstroke of the â??hâ? gathered undried ink from the just-barely-written â??parenthesisâ? (I believe he considers it an editorial symbol) and thereby created the pool of ink seen above the â??hâ?.

At the time (June 2008) Dr. Hauglid, after examining the original document under high magnification, concurred with my analysis: the â??(â?? was written over the top of the â??hâ? in the line below.

Since then, the documents have been examined utilizing several other imaging methods, including ultra-violet, multi-spectral, and x-ray fluorescent.

I will not report on the conclusions consequent to this additional scientific testing, but I would like to expand upon my earlier argument that the â??(â?? was clearly written over the top of the â??hâ?, and I will draw upon some high magnification images to prove the point.

When the scribe wrote the â??(â??, excess ink was pressed into the borders of the bold line at its bottom, creating almost a ridge of ink surrounding the pen stroke. I have outlined the ridge of which I speak in the following image:

Now viewed without the highlighting (and, incidentally, this image has not been edited in any fashion, with the exception of being magnified â?? this is the raw image of the locus in the document) it can be easily seen that the ascender of the â??hâ? did not disturb this outlining ridge at all, as one would expect it to have done were the â??hâ? written after the â??(â??. Rather, at this level of magnification, it is quite obvious that the â??(â?? was written after the â??hâ?. Also, the pool of ink seen at the top of the â??hâ? manifests the same properties, and it likewise is undisturbed by the â??hâ?; it clearly is over the ascender of the â??hâ?, having been written afterwards.

I will leave it to our readers to refer to earlier posts on this thread in order to appreciate the significance of this finding and its meaning within the larger context of the discussion.

[David Bokovoy]

This thread has been dormant for quite awhile now, but in the meantime research has continued on the last question considered â?? that of the parenthesis in the insertion having been written after the line below.

Metcalfe has argued against that assertion, even going so far as to claim he has replicated, with his own quill pen, the exact scenario we see at this locus. Assuming my understanding of his arguments is correct, he argues that the upstroke of the â??hâ? gathered undried ink from the just-barely-written â??parenthesisâ? (I believe he considers it an editorial symbol) and thereby created the pool of ink seen above the â??hâ?.

At the time (June 2008) Dr. Hauglid, after examining the original document under high magnification, concurred with my analysis: the â??(â?? was written over the top of the â??hâ? in the line below.

Since then, the documents have been examined utilizing several other imaging methods, including ultra-violet, multi-spectral, and x-ray fluorescent.

I will not report on the conclusions consequent to this additional scientific testing, but I would like to expand upon my earlier argument that the â??(â?? was clearly written over the top of the â??hâ?, and I will draw upon some high magnification images to prove the point.

When the scribe wrote the â??(â??, excess ink was pressed into the borders of the bold line at its bottom, creating almost a ridge of ink surrounding the pen stroke. I have outlined the ridge of which I speak in the following image:

Now viewed without the highlighting (and, incidentally, this image has not been edited in any fashion, with the exception of being magnified â?? this is the raw image of the locus in the document) it can be easily seen that the ascender of the â??hâ? did not disturb this outlining ridge at all, as one would expect it to have done were the â??hâ? written after the â??(â??. Rather, at this level of magnification, it is quite obvious that the â??(â?? was written after the â??hâ?. Also, the pool of ink seen at the top of the â??hâ? manifests the same properties, and it likewise is undisturbed by the â??hâ?; it clearly is over the ascender of the â??hâ?, having been written afterwards.

I will leave it to our readers to refer to earlier posts on this thread in order to appreciate the significance of this finding and its meaning within the larger context of the discussion.

Thanks, Will. Given my new found interest in the KEP and its relationship to the BofA, this has been a truly fascinating thread. Really looking forward to the eventual publication of this research.

best,

--DB

[William Schryver]

I would like to report, without elaboration, that the finding described above in my previous post has now been confirmed via expert forensic document analysis. And without specifying a timetable over which I have no control, I would estimate that the formal report of this finding (and other analyses that have been performed) will appear within a time frame expressed in months.

Given that the "(" has been confirmed to have overwritten the "h" in the line below (in conjunction with the other evidences adduced previously in this thread), it follows that the larger thesis concerning this locus is accurate: the highlighted portion (as seen below) is a later, interlinear insertion to the document in question.

Of course, this finding permanently alters the nature of the debate over whether or not the Book of Abraham (at 1:12) contains an internal reference tying it to the Sensen text on the papyrus.

[Danite3459]

Thanks Will,

This is a very significant contribution to the discussion of this issue.

Cool.

I would like to report, without elaboration, that the finding described above in my previous post has now been confirmed via expert forensic document analysis. And without specifying a timetable over which I have no control, I would estimate that the formal report of this finding (and other analyses that have been performed) will appear within a time frame expressed in months.

Given that the "(" has been confirmed to have overwritten the "h" in the line below (in conjunction with the other evidences adduced previously in this thread), it follows that the larger thesis concerning this locus is accurate: the highlighted portion (as seen below) is a later, interlinear insertion to the document in question.

Of course, this finding permanently alters the nature of the debate over whether or not the Book of Abraham (at 1:12) contains an internal reference tying it to the Sensen text on the papyrus.

[William Schryver]

Thank you, Mr. Danite, for your blood-curdling commendation.

I predict that when good images of the KEP get in the hands of really smart people, we'll see many more provocative findings emerge from the expanded study.