The Simultaneous Dictation Theory: Reducing Supposition

[Brian Hauglid]

To any and all interested in current BoA mss research:

I think it is a good time to provide a general update on what's been happening with my research on the BoA mss. Unfortunately I will not be able to respond to posters with questions.

First, I think Will is doing very well in dealing with the Abr. mss. Despite the fact that he has to work with mostly inferior images. I agree with many of his points. And the ones I may disagree with are mainly due to not having good images.

Second, I can say this: The simultaneous dictation theory is fatally flawed. But I have not come to this conclusion lightly. I have considered it very carefully. Since the start of discussing these issues two years ago I have had a number of text critics look at these mss. I have told them about the simultaneous theory and also shown the evidence (i.e., dictation to two scribes, a limited number of common emendations, and, of course, the left-hand characters and corresponding? English text, etc.). I have used some of Ashment's or Brent's explanations (what I can get) for some of the common emendations. The text critics I consulted , like the critics of the BoA, can clearly see the points coming from the other side. But then when I start showing them some of the many anomalies between the two mss, things take a decidedly different turn. They quickly start picking up on the dittography, haplography, homoioarctons, homoioteleutons, erasure placement, ink flow, etc. Some of these people are respected NT text critics who understand these issue very well. They can spot a copy error a mile away. I have not yet found any of these people who have not come to the same conclusion I came to two years ago: we are dealing here with derivative copies.

I have also visited with prominent Church historians and point blank asked them if they know of any evidence that JS in any way, shape, or, form practiced simultaneous dictation. All know the historical records inside and out. None of them knew of any evidence for such a practice.

Two years ago Brent and I had discussions online about the "gods of the land." This year it's Abr. 1:12. In both instances, Brent et al. failed to provide good evidence for the simultaneous theory. But instead created a supposed simultaneous scenario filled with historical supposition and weak textual arguments. Today it has not changed. Chris' model is variations on the same theme. It's the simultaneous theory informing the evidence. This model does not stand the test of evidence.

If Brent were to publish some of the explanations of these mss that I've seen, i.e. arguing for simultaneous dictation, I fear it could prove to be an embarrassment in the academic world.

The volume I'm working on will examine the evidence that emerges from the mss and then, as it should be, the evidence will inform varying degrees of plausible theories. Simultaneous dictation will be there but it will certainly not be at the top of the list. It will include a critical text of the BoA and transcriptions of the mss using sigla not unlike the transcriptions currently being produced in the JS Papers Project (see JS Project website). The books main purpose is to provide a textual history of the BoA. The section dealing with the origin of the BoA will be ancillary.

As many of you know, being an LDS scholar working on controversial research such as this immediately puts the scholar in a suspect position. Questions arise as to whether the scholar can be "scholarly" enough. Therefore, the LDS scholar must go the second mile in making sure the scholarship is solid and above reproach. This means the scholar has to work twice as hard as is normally required. But this will inevitably prove fruitful. For, at some near future point these mss will be made available for all to see. When that time comes, it will become much clearer what the BoA mss say for themselves.

Although some questions will be left unanswered it will be very clear what these mss are not.

Brian Hauglid

[gtaggart]

To any and all interested in current BoA mss research:

<snip>

First, I think Will is doing very well in dealing with the Abr. mss. Despite the fact that he has to work with mostly inferior images. I agree with many of his points. And the ones I may disagree with are mainly due to not having good images.

Brian Hauglid

Brian,

Thanks. By the way, imagine my surprise when you implied that quality of the KEP images each or you has may vary and may affect the analysis. Maybe that's why Brent never answered when I asked him whether he would rather have the actual KEP to make his arguments than the images he has.

Greg

[cksalmon]

To any and all interested in current BoA mss research:

I think it is a good time to provide a general update on what's been happening with my research on the BoA mss. Unfortunately I will not be able to respond to posters with questions.

First, I think Will is doing very well in dealing with the Abr. mss. Despite the fact that he has to work with mostly inferior images. I agree with many of his points. And the ones I may disagree with are mainly due to not having good images.

Second, I can say this: The simultaneous dictation theory is fatally flawed. But I have not come to this conclusion lightly. I have considered it very carefully. Since the start of discussing these issues two years ago I have had a number of text critics look at these mss. I have told them about the simultaneous theory and also shown the evidence (i.e., dictation to two scribes, a limited number of common emendations, and, of course, the left-hand characters and corresponding? English text, etc.). I have used some of Ashment's or Brent's explanations (what I can get) for some of the common emendations. The text critics I consulted , like the critics of the BoA, can clearly see the points coming from the other side. But then when I start showing them some of the many anomalies between the two mss, things take a decidedly different turn. They quickly start picking up on the dittography, haplography, homoioarctons, homoioteleutons, erasure placement, ink flow, etc. Some of these people are respected NT text critics who understand these issue very well. They can spot a copy error a mile away. I have not yet found any of these people who have not come to the same conclusion I came to two years ago: we are dealing here with derivative copies.

I have also visited with prominent Church historians and point blank asked them if they know of any evidence that JS in any way, shape, or, form practiced simultaneous dictation. All know the historical records inside and out. None of them knew of any evidence for such a practice.

Two years ago Brent and I had discussions online about the "gods of the land." This year it's Abr. 1:12. In both instances, Brent et al. failed to provide good evidence for the simultaneous theory. But instead created a supposed simultaneous scenario filled with historical supposition and weak textual arguments. Today it has not changed. Chris' model is variations on the same theme. It's the simultaneous theory informing the evidence. This model does not stand the test of evidence.

If Brent were to publish some of the explanations of these mss that I've seen, i.e. arguing for simultaneous dictation, I fear it could prove to be an embarrassment in the academic world.

The volume I'm working on will examine the evidence that emerges from the mss and then, as it should be, the evidence will inform varying degrees of plausible theories. Simultaneous dictation will be there but it will certainly not be at the top of the list. It will include a critical text of the BoA and transcriptions of the mss using sigla not unlike the transcriptions currently being produced in the JS Papers Project (see JS Project website). The books main purpose is to provide a textual history of the BoA. The section dealing with the origin of the BoA will be ancillary.

As many of you know, being an LDS scholar working on controversial research such as this immediately puts the scholar in a suspect position. Questions arise as to whether the scholar can be "scholarly" enough. Therefore, the LDS scholar must go the second mile in making sure the scholarship is solid and above reproach. This means the scholar has to work twice as hard as is normally required. But this will inevitably prove fruitful. For, at some near future point these mss will be made available for all to see. When that time comes, it will become much clearer what the BoA mss say for themselves.

Although some questions will be left unanswered it will be very clear what these mss are not.

Brian Hauglid

I'm afraid I read very little here about the status of BoA research. For those of us following this discussion from afar (or at least for me), the lack of direct citation or quotation from the textual critics you've consulted is a bit frustrating. I'm sure that both the usual suspects and the onlookers (of which I am one) couldn't help but benefit from the insights you've gained in your various interactions with them. Will these interactions and the specific conclusions to which other text-critical scholars have come be referenced/highlighted in your forthcoming publication? I hope so, especially with regard to the NT scholars with which you've engaged in directed exchanges on these matters.

As an aside, I do understand the limiting nature of various time constraints, but your schedule-derived inability to answer questions that might be directed against your position is a bit frustrating as well.

As a matter of course, I already assume that you will address some of the nagging questions raised by Metcalfe, et al., vis-

[Brian Hauglid]

CKS,

I'm afraid I read very little here about the status of BoA research.

You're right.

Mods: please re-title this thread "The Simultaneous Dictation Theory: Reducing Supposition"

Stay tuned for the details forthcoming in print.

Thanks,

Brian

[Calm]

We can only hope that your efforts in getting them published take much less time than Brent's have where there is still no end is sight, . If I recall, there was once a plan to publish two volumes--the first pretty much just a presentation of the photos to study and the second dealing with the various arguments surrounding them. That would have been ideal, but if better quality visuals are now shortly to be made available publicly, I suspect any publisher would also want to include them alongside the photos. Perhaps this is what the current delay is about (perhaps Brent could confirm this assumption?).

I will not put you on the spot asking for a publication timeline as they are often useless when discussing original research as opposed to works that amount to extended literature reviews or massive collections of quotes dug up by others.

If it's under five years I'll be happy.

If you do have time, I would love a link to or a short description of the background or training of text critics. The only thing I'm familiar with would apply to detecting forgeries; I am clueless to how one would go about learning how to decode the mechanics of how something is written from the manuscripts if one is trying to go beyond just eyeballing something and saying "it looks like....."

[William Schryver]

We can only hope that your efforts in getting them published take much less time than Brent's have where there is still no end is sight, . If I recall, there was once a plan to publish two volumes--the first pretty much just a presentation of the photos to study and the second dealing with the various arguments surrounding them. That would have been ideal, but if better quality visuals are now shortly to be made available publicly, I suspect any publisher would also want to include them alongside the photos. Perhaps this is what the current delay is about (perhaps Brent could confirm this assumption?).

I will not put you on the spot asking for a publication timeline as they are often useless when discussing original research as opposed to works that amount to extended literature reviews or massive collections of quotes dug up by others.

If it's under five years I'll be happy.

If you do have time, I would love a link to or a short description of the background or training of text critics. The only thing I'm familiar with would apply to detecting forgeries; I am clueless to how one would go about learning how to decode the mechanics of how something is written from the manuscripts if one is trying to go beyond just eyeballing something and saying "it looks like....."

I'm sure there are others who could make recommendations superior to mine, but I own and have profited from the following volumes pertaining to textual criticism:

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman -- The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration

D. C. Greetham -- Textual Scholarship: An Introduction

Paul D. Wegner -- A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results

So much to learn; so little time ...