Zub Zool oan and Abraham 1:2b?????3

[_maklelan]

I think it's really unfortunate that Maklelan is apparently backing out of the debate.

I know you think your readers are idiots, Scratch, but this is just asinine.

Obviously, Kevin has piled up a lot of evidence in favor of a dictation theory

Really? All I saw him do was refer obliquely to that evidence.

and it seems clear that Mak just wants to ignore the mountain of evidence. Sure: the alleged "homoioteleuton" is interesting...hard to explain, perhaps. But I'm curious how/why this lone anomaly is supposed to impact or defuse all the other evidences that Kevin listed.

It's not. You're not paying attention. I'm sure the evidence for dictation in other pages of the manuscripts is perfectly legitimate. On this page, there's none. There is no evidence to suggest that the entire corpus was exclusively dictated and not transcribed. Kevin is trying to nakedly assert that evidence of dictation in other places amounts to evidence that the entire corpus was exclusively dictated, but that's a blatant fallacy. He has to be able to account for the homoioteleuton in order for that to work, and as we've seen, he cannot.

I mean, if the key passage was being dictated, it's fairly easy to imagine reasons why the same basic paragraph would have been written twice on the same page. Anyone with enough experience with writing can identify with this: you are composing a paragraph, and you decide either that you don't like it, or you get distracted, or whatever else. So you decide to start from scratch. You pitch the whole thing, or you re-write it more or less verbatim, managing to change a couple of things here and there.

And you suggest that this is the case, despite the fact that in every other text ever written or dictated by Joseph Smith in his entire life, he never once did that? What about the fact that the differences in the paragraphs point, again, to transcription? The word "me" is inserted secondarily after "Abraham." Clearly the word was missed in the parent text and subsequently inserted on the wrong side of "Abraham." "The Lord said unto Abraham ^me^ get thee out" is utterly nonsensical. "The Lord said unto Abraham get thee out" doesn't make sense in light of the fact that the entire rest of the repeated paragraph is in the first person. No, your argument doesn't even come close to getting off the ground.

You can even look at a more modern manuscript, like the opening passage from Don DeLillo's great novel, Underworld. He rewrote the passage over and over again on a typewriter, changing things a bit each time, so that you get different (sometimes different in very subtle ways) versions of the same paragraph on the same page.

It's difficult to scratch out letters and write superlinear and sublinear emendations on a typewriter. It's not quite so difficult to do it with pen and a paper, which is what Smith and company did every other time.

What I'm saying here is that I don't understand why Maklelan thinks that the same-page copy is necessarily a "homoioteleuton" rather than, say, a revision.

Primarily, because neither Smith nor his scribes ever revised a text in that fashion. Additionally, there were no real revisions, only additional scribal errors. Next, the signs of homoioteleuton are too strong. The dittograph begins right at the first of two line-ending occurrences of "Haran," for instance. Your argument is completely and totally invalid.

[_Trevor]

Your argument is becoming increasingly incoherent and fallacious, and you've entirely abandoned your theory. You're clearly way out of your league.

All on the basis of one argument concerning homoioteleuton? Really? I don't think so. These are entire manuscripts, and this bystander does not see that you have really digested the entire enchilada. Kudos for some ridiculous posturing, but otherwise I am unimpressed.

[_maklelan]

Also, how does the straight up copy theory account for the fact that there are some differences between the 2 paragraphs?

The differences are additional signs of transcription error. "The Lord said unto Abraham ^me^ get thee unto . . ." is not an intentional revision. "Me" was missed in transcription and was added later, on the wrong side of the word "Abraham." Can you point to any other differences that are not most likely transcription errors?

If this were simply a direct copy from the same "missing" document, would they not be the same? However, if the first paragraph was dictated, and then copied (for whatever reason), would it not be unreasonable to assume some changes could have been made when it was copied from above?

It would not be unreasonable if the changes were toward a better text, they fixed errors, or were not otherwise manifestly transcription errors.

[_maklelan]

All on the basis of one argument concerning homoioteleuton?

That's the argument I referenced in my comment, but his response to the evidence shows he's entirely unprepared to even entertain the notion that his assumptions are flawed in the least. For that reason, yes, he is, in all else academic, way out of his league.

Really? I don't think so. These are entire manuscripts, and this bystander does not see that you have really digested the entire enchilada. Kudos for some ridiculous posturing, but otherwise I am unimpressed.

I don't expect to impress people who aren't willing to consider that their dogmas are flawed.

[_Trevor]

The differences are additional signs of transcription error. "The Lord said unto Abraham ^me^ get thee unto . . ." is not an intentional revision. "Me" was missed in transcription and was added later, on the wrong side of the word "Abraham." Can you point to any other differences that are not most likely transcription errors?

Most likely is a judgment call, and I am not convinced. This could also result from the speed of dictation, in which the person dictating reached the word "Abraham" before the scribe put down "me." Then, realizing that he had missed that word, he simply added it, but on the wrong side.

[_harmony]

I don't see how any of this makes a difference, as long as the end product doesn't match the papyrus scroll. So why all the fuss?

[_maklelan]

Most likely is a judgment call, and I am not convinced. This could also result from the speed of dictation, in which the person dictating reached the word "Abraham" before the scribe put down "me." Then, realizing that he had missed that word, he simply added it, but on the wrong side.

If you want to look at it that way then this particular variant is a wash. The evidence for homoioteleuton is still pressing. Any examples of variants that are manifestly dictated and not transcribed? If not, the evidence points unambiguously at homoioteleuton. Your camp's assertion still fails.

[Guest]

That's the argument I referenced in my comment, but his response to the evidence shows he's entirely unprepared to even entertain the notion that his assumptions are flawed in the least. For that reason, yes, he is, in all else academic, way out of his league.

This is why you have an argument, Mak. And, you have admitted that you are not prepared to speak to a lot of the issues with the text that he has at least worked with before. And, finally, clearly you should be able to grasp the irony of accusing Kevin of being unprepared to entertain the notion that his assumptions are flawed because this is precisely what he showed the ability to do when he quit serving as Gee's mouthpiece in the Metcalfe debate. Obviously he was capable of doing that then, so your pronouncement that he is incapable of doing so now rings more than a little hollow.

Since you have admitted that you are "just getting into this," why on earth would he, or anyone for that matter, suddenly bow down to you on the basis of a couple of observations? Because you went to Oxford? You're smarter than that, and believe it or not, so are we.

I don't expect to impress people who aren't willing to consider that their dogmas are flawed.

Why be a prick, Mak? Do you know me? Do you know whether I am willing to reconsider my position based on new evidence and persuasive arguments or not? All of this rhetoric about me having a dogma and refusing to consider that it might be flawed is a pile of horse manure. And, if you are willing to jump in here to pronounce on my intellectual integrity, knowing as little about that as you do, then what else might you be premature about, intellectually speaking, yourself?

[_Darth J]

maklelan, just another quick question:

EDIT: Or questions:

Certainly you can see that this represents a rather telling shift in emphasis.

A shift in emphasis by whom?

It seems the position was, for a long time, that the the KEP was powerful and damning evidence of Smith's fraud.

What do you mean "the" theory? Are you asserting that this was the theory of everyone who does not believe in the LDS Church's claims about the Book of Abraham, or the theory of a small group of people that have studied the KEP, the members of which I probably don't need more than two hands' worth of fingers to count?

When evidence is produced that undermines the support for that position, suddenly it's unimportant, peripheral, and of little apologetic value. I hope you can appreciate what that kind of shift in emphasis says to me about the critics.

Shift in emphasis by whom? By everyone who does not believe that the Book of Abraham is a legitimate scripture, or by the handful of people who have studied this particular piece of esoteric Mormon trivia? Are you asserting that nobody said the KEP were irrelevant to their non-belief in the Book of Abraham prior to your and/or Schryver's argument?

[_Trevor]

If you want to look at it that way then this particular variant is a wash. The evidence for homoioteleuton is still pressing. Any examples of variants that are manifestly dictated and not transcribed? If not, the evidence points unambiguously at homoioteleuton. Your camp's assertion still fails.

First of all, mak, I don't have a "camp." You are trying to persuade your readers. I am one of them. I will question your arguments where I see potential problems. You raised that particular example and declared what you thought was "most likely." Sitting in my chair, I did not immediately agree that it was "most likely." To characterize what Kevin and others have argued as mere assertion is unfair. They are making a judgment call based on long study of these documents which you admit you have only just begun to digest.

Is this what you apologists do? I recall that Will originally came shooting out of the gate claiming to know lots of things he was ignorant of. You, only having recently become aware of many of these issues, fly in here to tell Kevin et al. that they are all wrong, woefully out of touch, and completely unqualified. Whereas you may have technical training, I am surprised to hear these emphatic pronouncements and posturing, when in my academic experience scholars are usually much more careful than that.