I’m not going to engage you or anyone else on this board in a protracted debate on this issue. Frankly, I’m convinced that none of you are capable of moving away from your viewpoints. And that’s fine, too. As I made clear above, and in my quote you have become so fond of lately, I can understand and even empathize with your inability to see other possibilities than fraudulence absent a spiritually-based conviction of the divine origin of the text of the Book of Abraham. Just like with the Book of Mormon, a belief in the divine origin of the Book of Abraham is absolutely dependent on spiritually-based experiences. And in my estimation, that’s exactly how it ought to be. Those who choose eternal life must necessarily do so on the basis of evidence that cannot be empirically established.
That said, I will only offer a response to one of your points. Speaking of Royal Skousen’s analysis vis-à-vis the argument that KEPA Ms. #2 presents compelling evidence of being a visual copy of a predecessor document, you wrote:
Yet, he has never published these sentiments, nor has he presented any case for it. You’ve been toting him around in your back pocket for two years now. This is just more window-shopping where you advertise something for months, even years, with the promise that one day, just maybe, we’ll be able to test it and see how it really fits.
Let us then briefly revisit the developments from last year. During the process of my analysis of Ms. #2, I recognized on page 4 the classic elements of a dittograph – probably the most telling sign of visual copying. I initially reported my findings in this post:
I have previously refrained from presenting one particular argument on this thread, since I had anticipated the possibility that Brent Metcalfe was going to address this issue in his presentation to the Exmormon Foundation, which took place last Saturday evening in Salt Lake City. I wanted to hear his explanation for it prior to discussing the issue myself.
However, I attended the presentation, and no mention was made of this. Therefore, I have chosen to now augment my previous arguments regarding the evidence of visual copying by presenting what I personally feel to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Williams’ Ms. #2 is a visual copy.
We have spoken before about “dittography”. For the benefit of those who have been following this discussion only casually, I will quickly review the definition of dittography and its significance in this particular debate over the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.
The definition is as follows:Sometimes the eye of the scribe picked up the same word or group of words a second time and, as a result, copied twice what should have appeared only once (this kind of error is called dittography).
The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2005:254
It should be noted that the presence of dittographs in a document is a definite indication that the document is the result of a visual copy.
There are present, in Williams’ Ms. #2, at least three dittographs. I have previously made mention of one of them – the already discussed issue of “gods of the land”. However, there is an even more obvious example of a dittograph on page 4 of the manuscript. We can see that Williams apparently left off copying at what is now Abr. 2:5. He then resumed at a later date/time. The last word he had written was “Haran”. When he resumed his copying, he looked back to the exemplar (the document from which he was copying) and picked up what he believed to be the corresponding instance of “Haran”, and then began copying from that point. However, his eye picked up the wrong instance of “Haran”. And as a result, he ended up repeating an entire paragraph he had already written previously.
Before he had time to be influenced by a sophistic “explanation” by Brent Metcalfe, Chris Smith initially responded as follows:
”This is a very convincing example of a dittograph. I can think of no reason from an oral dictation standpoint for this paragraph to be repeated.”
See here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208052617
Professor William Hamblin, also an experienced textual analyst, then commented:
” This is really a quite stunning textbook example of dittography.”
See here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208053370
I then submitted my finding to Professor Brian Hauglid, who is also a trained textual critic. He enthusiastically confirmed the analysis.
Finally I submitted the analysis to Professor Royal Skousen, who as mentioned above, is one of the more highly-respected textual analysts on the planet. Professor Skousen responded as follows:
I think this is very definitely a question of visual dittography arising from copying from another manuscript. Your analysis seems perfectly correct, with the scribe coming back later and thus making the mistake. This kind of long dittography can definitely occur when someone is coming back to copying after some delay.
Royal Skousen, personal e-mail to William Schryver, 10/21/2006 2:12 PM
Professor Skousen’s analysis will be published in the near future along with corroborating analysis from other professional text analysts.
So, in addition to my amateur analysis, the finding was confirmed by three experienced textual critics – all PhDs.
Now, the presence of a definitive dittograph in the manuscript, in and of itself, is proof of visual copying. But there are also other indicators of visual copying in both Ms. #2 and #3. As I indicated in my previous post, I am not at liberty to elaborate further on the specifics of the additional corroborating evidence. But it will form a portion of the upcoming critical edition of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, as well as being the primary focus of a paper I will submit to the Farms Review of Books next year. I am confident that the evidence presented will leave little room for doubt in the minds of all reasonable observers that these manuscripts, whatever they may be, cannot be considered simultaneous transcripts of an oral dictation.
This then concludes my participation in this particular discussion. I like playing here in Shadyburg from time to time. I’ve even grown to have a certain amount of affection for a few of you. I find it occasionally enjoyable to engage in some light-hearted banter about things largely unrelated to whether the church is true or a blight upon the body politic.
But I don’t think it is possible to pursue any serious intellectual discussion here. There is far too much acrimony emanating from those of you who are certain that portions of your lives have been wasted, and your spiritual selves violated by the alleged charlatan Joseph Smith and his legacy, the big, bad Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I sincerely wish all of you well, especially the handful of you that I have come to know better than others – Runtu, California Kid, Kimberly Ann, and even you Kevin.
Best wishes,
Will