KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_beastie]

by the way, I brought up this flaw a while ago. Nomad, the quintessential cheerleader, assured me that Mak had addressed the issue, but I could never find where Mak had done so, and Nomad never would provide a link, despite my repeated requests.

viewtopic.php?p=350033#p350033

[_beastie]

by the way, Will, did I transcribe this comment of yours correctly?

Don’t misunderstand – I have encountered no evidence to date that they believe they were actually restoring the language of Adam, although it is possible that they believed that some of the characters they produced had come to them through inspiration. No, it appears they were merely producing their own rendition of what they believed pure language would be like. Deciphering Egyptian scrolls was not their purpose.”

[_Paul Osborne]

Unfortunately, for your argument, Metcalfe has long been misrepresenting the evidence, and no one has ever bothered to verify his claims.

The first instance is not "son" at all. It is "sun." Indeed, what we're really dealing with at that locus is either another dittograph, or (if not a dittograph) merely a case where Parrish wrote "sun" poorly and therefore decided to re-do it. In any case, there is no "o" between the "s" and the "n". It is clearly a "u". It is not a case of homophonic mishearing.

And how is it you verify your claim, William? You’re asking me to take your word for it that the letter is a “u” rather than an “o” as viewed by some critical thinkers. I think you need to verify your claim and provide a photograph to prove you know what you’re talking about. It’s too bad the General Authorities have kept these documents under lock and key and refuse to let the members look at them.

Prove your statement, William. Then I will concede this point.

Paul O

[_beastie]

Here's an essay written by Thomas Paine, published in 1818, addressing the common myth that Masonry had ancient origins and connections with ancient Egypt.

http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... sonry.html

In 1730, Samuel Pritchard, member of a constituted lodge in England, published a treatise entitled Masonry Dissected; and made oath before the Lord Mayor of London that it was a true copy. "Samuel Pritchard maketh oath that the copy hereunto annexed is a true and genuine copy in every particular." In his work he has given the catechism or examination, in question and answer, of the Apprentices, the Fellow Craft, and the Master Mason. There was no difficulty in doing this, as it is mere form.

In his introduction he says, "the original institution of Masonry consisted in the foundation of the liberal arts and sciences, but more especially in Geometry, for at the building of the tower of Babel, the art and mystery of Masonry was first introduced, and from thence handed down by Euclid, a worthy and excellent mathematician of the Egyptians; and he communicated it to Hiram, the Master Mason concerned in building Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem."

The learned, but unfortunate Doctor Dodd, Grand Chaplain of Masonry, in his oration at the dedication of Free-Mason's Hall, London, traces Masonry through a variety of stages. Masons, says he, are well informed from their own private and interior records that the building of Solomon's Temple is an important era, from whence they derive many mysteries of their art. "Now (says he,) be it remembered that this great event took place above 1000 years before the Christian era, and consequently more than a century before Homer, the first of the Grecian Poets, wrote; and above five centuries before Pythagoras brought from the east his sublime system of truly masonic instruction to illuminate. our western world. But, remote as this period is, we date not from thence the commencement of our art. For though it might owe to the wise and glorious King of Israel some of its many mystic forms and hieroglyphic ceremonies, yet certainly the art itself is coeval with man, the great subject of it. "We trace," continues he, "its footsteps in the most distant, the most remote ages and nations of the world. We find it among the first and most celebrated civilizers of the East. We deduce it regularly from the first astronomers on the plains of Chaldea, to the wise and mystic kings and priests of Egypt, the sages of Greece, and the philosophers of Rome."

Though the Masons have taken many of their ceremonies and hieroglyphics from the ancient Egyptians, it is certain they have not taken their chronology from thence. If they had, the church would soon have sent them to the stake; as the chronology of the Egyptians, like that of the Chinese, goes many thousand years beyond the Bible chronology.

"The Egyptians," continues Smith, "in the earliest ages constituted a great number of Lodges, but with assiduous care kept their secrets of Masonry from all strangers. These secrets have been imperfectly handed down to us by oral tradition only, and ought to be kept undiscovered to the laborers, craftsmen, and apprentices, till by good behavior and long study they become better acquainted in geometry and the liberal arts, and thereby qualified for Masters and Wardens, which is seldom or never the case with English Masons."

So tell me, Will, were you unaware that Masonry was commonly associated with ancient Egypt - including its hieroglyphs - or were you aware of this problematic information and chose to ignore it, realizing how damaging it is to your theory?

[_beastie]

Even better...

Joseph Smith's interest in Egypt was also connected to Masonry. Even before Smith's Canandaigua trial for glass-looking in January 1828, John Sheldon had reportedly written a letter in Masonic hieroglyphics to General Solomon Van Rensselaer, the Revolutionary War hero.79 At the time it sensationally underlined the claim of the Explanation of the First Degree Tracing Board: "the usages and customs of Masons have ever corresponded with those of the Egyptian philosophers, to which they bear a near affinity.… they [p.111] concealed their particular tenets … under hieroglyphical figures."80

The Saratoga Baptist Association at Milton, New York, in 1828 took that claim seriously, charging in the second of its fifteen-point indictments that Masonic rites "correspond with the Egyptian."81 The Egyptian obelisks upon which Champollion and Seyffarth had recently turned public attention were said to have been inscribed with Masonic hieroglyphics.82 Combining the Egyptian on the marble pillar fragments, which Solomon could not translate, with the unknown script in which God's name was written on the gold plate in the Royal Arch might produce "reformed Egyptian," which could only be translated with a key which worked by revelation. Like Solomon, Smith received revelation in the manner of a Masonic priest.

Joseph Smith condemned current expressions of Masonry but nevertheless accepted Masonry as a truly ancient form confirming God's relationships with humans from Adam on. He restored a Mason unencumbered by the corruptions and heresies of the lodges and churches in western New York.83 The high percentage of ex-Masons among Smith's early converts in the 1830s, when the anti-Masonic conflict was still fresh, indicates that many were looking not for rejection but for reform. Masonic legend provided support for Christian tradition and a rich lode to mine in combating deism. Joseph Smith took what he felt was true and transformed it for his own use.84

Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism

by
Robert N. Hullinger

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/sk ... apter8.htm

[_Paul Osborne]

By the way, Paul, why do you believe that a supralinear insertion is evidence of a manuscript being the product of oral dictation? Upon what text-critical principle is your conclusion based?

No one will argue that the phrase in the Parrish manuscript was originally written as follows:

“therefore they killed upon this altar”.

As such, the “they” makes reference to the priests who according to the story killed the virgins.

Sometime later (we don't know when) the manuscript was altered and the word “were” was penciled in above and in-between the words “they killed” which now redirects the “they” in the phrase to refer to the virgins rather than the priests.

Why is this little correction so important? It tells the story the way Joseph Smith wanted it to be told! After all, Warren Parrish was not the author of the Book of Abraham. How does this error contribute to the debate between oral dictations vs. making a copy of a parent manuscript? First of all, there is no way to prove when the word “were” was penciled in. It could have been done right after the sentence was completed or much later when the manuscript itself underwent editing so the timing of the correction is really a moot point. What matters is how Parrish made the mistake in the first place.

I see two possible explanations with regards to oral dictation:

1. Parrish failed to hear Joseph Smith say the word “were”
2. Parrish failed to write down the word “were” even though he heard it

I see three explanations for the copying from a parent manuscript theory:

1. Parrish was simply sloppy and didn’t deserve to be paid for his services
2. Parrish was indifferent and wasn’t overly concerned with accuracy
3. Parrish was drinking

So, William, which is it?

Paul O

[_Kevin Graham]

Let's have a recap of the different theories that attempt to explain the relationship between Ms1a written by F.G. Williams and Ms1b written by Warren Parrish.

1. I have argued that these two manuscripts mostly represent a simultaneous transcription via dictation. I propose that Ms1b was entirely dictated, whereas Ms1a was dictated to the point where Ms1b stops at Abr 2:5. The rest of that manuscript includes a copied dittograph of Abr 2:3-5 and includes part of verse 6 until it terminates at the end of the page.

2. Will Schryver has argued that these represent nothing more than copies and that he sees absolutely zero evidence that dictation was involved!

3. Daniel McClellan, the only text critic among us, has argued that the texts were both dictated and copied. He hasn't elaborated much, except to say that he believes the final portion of Ms1a represents a dittograph. From what I can tell - and he is free to clarify for us - he believes the evidence for dictation exists throughout the manuscripts but he believes they are present only because the scribes had the text dictated to them as it was read from a preexistent document.

Since Daniel accepts our premise that these texts were mostly dictated, I suggest that he has pretty much established our point as far as that is concerned. He agrees with me that there is dictation and copying involved, which is an amazing concession since we have for years heard nothing but denial on this point from the apologists. Dan's extended argument for the existence of a preexistent document is not based on text critical evidentiary standards, but rather, his appeal to logic, suggesting that it is the best thing that explains the dittograph. This can work in Will's favor only if this preexistent document preceded the transcription of the previous text on the two manuscripts. But this is far from demonstrated, and raises far more questions than it answers.

Naturally, anything that is copied is going be copied from a preexisting document, but since the dittograph wasn't necessarily written at the time the rest of the texts were dictated, saying the entire project, including the dictated portion, was based on a preexistent document is a non sequitur, that has no evidence supporting it. I have proposed that the dittograph was copied, but not necessarily from a pre-October 1835 document. Since Daniel has already suggested this portion could have been written at a future time, I don't see how he could argue with this. What I propose is that Williams, at some future point in time, did in fact decide to extend his manuscript by copying from some future document, perhaps a version of the Printer's Manuscript. This in my view is a better proposal because it explains more:

1. Why did the two scribes stop at two different points? If I am right, then it isn't a coincidence that the dittograph begins precisely where Parrish stopped. They both stopped at 2:5 and then later Williams came back and copied the rest in.

2. Why does the dittograph disregard the margin? If my proposal is correct then this makes sense because Williams would have known he would not be adding Egyptian characters.

3. Why does it not contain Egyptian characters? In my proposal this makes perfect sense since the Printer's Manuscript did not include the characters either.

4. Why does verse six not begin a new paragraph as it does in Ms2? In my proposal this makes sense again because the Printer's Manuscript avoided dividing the text into paragraphs, so Williams would have no frame of reference for a new paragraph.

So that is my theory as far as explaining the dittograph. Now concerning the more crucial aspect of this debate -the "dictation via preexisting document" theory- I believe Dan's proposal explains less and requires far more assumptions to be true before the theory can even begin to enter the realm of plausibility. I think the best way to illustrate this is to walk through the evidences for dictation and pair up the proposed explanations to see which sounds more reasonable.

Example #1

Abraham 1:17 – “And this because they have turned their hearts away from me”
Ms1a - “And this because their hearts are turned they have turned their hearts away from me” (bold text = strike through)
Ms1b - “And this because their hearts are turn they have turned their hearts away from me”

In my view, Joseph Smith was translating via "revelation" and corrected a mistake in the middle of dictating this verse. When he instructed his scribes to strike through "their hearts are turned," and replace it with "they have turned", Williams had already written the entire phrase whereas Parrish was transcribing at a slightly slower rate. This explains why Parrish didn't finish writing the last word of the phrase which is missing the last two letters. It is also significant that the crossbar in the "t" was not written in.

In Daniel McClellan's view, someone (maybe Smith, maybe not) was dictating from a preexistent document and wanted the scribes to copy it exactly as it appeared. This means all original errors must be present in the proposed copies. In Dan's view, the speaker informed Williams to write in the erroneous phrase in its entirety while Parrish was instructed to cut it short by two letters. Parrish was also given an added instruction not to finish crossing the "t" in the final word.

In William Schryver's view, this entire phrase was "copied" from a preexistent document. Yet somehow the two scribes were unable to make identical copies of a simple four-word phrase. Will argues that the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon supports his thesis since, as he claims, errors in that copied text "frequently" copy the mistakes from the original source document, even in cases where mistakes were made in transition. Meaning, interlinear emendations. Now before getting to the next examples I want to demonstrate just how deceptive of a claim this really is. Mr. Schryver makes claims about a document he assumes we have no access to. But I spent an hour last night scouring the Printer's Manuscript, looking for examples of mistakes consisting of entire phrases that had been copied into the Printer's Manuscript. I started from page one and worked my way through the first five chapters of first Nephi before I found the first multi-worded emendation and it was a secondary emendation of only two words. I came across perhaps dozens of emendations consisting of only one word, and all of them were clearly secondary as well, as evidenced by the fact that the errors were scratched out and the corrected words were written above them, not to the right of them as we see take place in the dictated manuscripts found in the KEP.

It is also worth mentioning that this two word emendation doesn't really compare to the emendations we point out in support of the dictation argument. If what Will says is true, and these same kinds of emendations are found "throughout" the Printer's Manuscript, then how does he explain the fact that Abr 1:4-2:5 consists of 1,350 words and within that short amount of text, we find multiple examples of multi-word emendations that involves phrases of four and five words. By comparison, the first 5,000 words of the Printer's Manuscript provides us with nothing comparable to these. Nothing.

Example #2

Abr 1:26 - “and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him”
Ms1b – “and also of Noah, his father, for in his days who blessed him”
Ms1b – “and also of Noah, his father, for in his days who blessed him”

Brent Metcalfe previously explained in detail the anomalies that correspond to this verse:

Williams initially wrote a comma followed by "for"; after deciding that this was the start of a new sentence, he (partially?) erased the comma and then overwrote the erasure with a period, also erasing the "f" in "for" and then overwriting the erased "f" with an "F"; Williams then crossed out "For in his days" and then continued writing "Who ..." only to realize that this was not the beginning of a new sentence, so he scribbled out the period (including the already crossed out "For") and then overwrote the "W" with a "w." Parrish crossed out "for in his days," and then continued writing "who ..."

In my view, Joseph Smith was dictating to his scribes and corrected them in mid-sentence. Upon correction they scratched through the mistake and then continued with the corrected text in transition.

In Daniel McClellan's view, someone was reading this to the scribes from a preexistent document and he instructed the scribes to write in the erroneous text, along with the scratch out. He also instructed Williams to make his copy correspond to the textual anomalies described by Metcalfe, whereas Parrish was instructed to leave his version as is.

In Will Schryver's view, the scribes were copying from a source document and decided to do something for the third time, that had not been done in the entire Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon. They decided to copy in an erroneous phrase, knowing perfectly well that it was erroneous, and then scratched it out and replace it with a phrase that doesn't resemble it in the slightest. This means, according to Will, Joseph Smith required three exact copies of an error-ridden text.

Example #3

Abr 1:12 - “I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record”
Ms1a - “I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record.”
Ms1b - "I will refer you to the representation, that is lying before you at the commencement of this record"

In my view, the scribes were being dictated the text and they were stopped in mid sentence upon correction. Parrish was slightly ahead of Williams, which explains why he had made it five words into the erroneous phrase, whereas Williams had only made it to the second word. This is a five word phrae that is replaced with a text that doesn't resemble it in word or sound. This mistake is best explained as one that was made as Joseph Smith was literally "translating" something as he was working it out in his mind. This is the only reasonable explanation for replacing one phrase with an entirely different phrase.

In Daniel McClellan's view, the scribes were dictated a text as it was read off from a source document. Even though the speaker instructed the scribes to include the erroneous phrase, Williams decided he would be lazy and rebellious by including only the first two words and scraatching it out before writing in the emendation.

In Will Schryver's view, this entire phrase was inserted by some mysterious person. It wasn't in the original translation at all, and so somehow Joseph Smith was hoodwwinked when it went to press. It has stood the test of canonized time for more than a century in the Church, but only Will was able to see the truth; a truth that hundreds of General Authorities failed to see for more than a century.

Example #4

Abr 1:9 - Shagreel was the sun
Ms1a - shag = reel was the sun
Ms1b- shagreel was the son

In my view, the text was being dictated without conditions. Meaning they were not instructed to transcribe the dictation including errors (contra McClellan). This easily explains why Parrish mistook sun for "son" and it also explains why the two scribes spelled Shagreel differently. If the speaker was stressing exactness in every detail, then surely he would have spelled out a difficult word such as this.

In Daniel McClellan's view, the scribes were transcribing a text as it was read to them from a preexisting document. Even though they were instructed to detail every mistake as it was in the parent document, Williams decided he would split Shagreel into two words. I have argued previously that Dan's proposal is ludicrous because it defeats the purpose of trying to get an exact match to something, and this is a classic case in point. If someone wanted an exact match to a parent document, he would have them copy it visually, and not audibly.

In Will Schryver's view, these were copies from a parent document. Somehow both scribes hallucinated at this point. Williams saw shagreel as two words spilt by a "=", whereas Parrish mistook sun for "son." Even though these are easily explained by text critics as mistakes via dictation, Will cannot afford to be rational on this point. Simply put, scribes copying these things down visually have no excuse for these kinds of mistakes. The chances that these kinds of mistakes would occur so often in such a short document are astronomical. And Will's claim that their intent was to include the mistakes of the parent document won't work in this instance since that would require two entirely different parent documents.

Example #5

Abr 1:26 - "and also Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth"
Ms1a - "who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and of with the blessings of wisdom ..."
Ms1b - "who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and of with the blessings of wisdom ..."

Williams crossed out "of" and then continued writing "with ..." Parrish erased "of" and then continued writing "with ..." where the "w" in "with" overwrites the erasure.

In my view, these were corrected in the middle of dictation.

In Daniel McClellan's view, these were dictated from a parent document. Williams was instructed to cross out the erroneous text whereas Parrish was instructed to erase it. (** this raises an interesting point. If these texts were supposed to preserve the original mistakes, then there should be zero evidence of any erasures).

In Will's view, these scribes were copying a preexistent document. Even though they were both supposed to preserve the original errors, Parrish got a wild hair up his ass and decided to completely erase one!


Example #6:

Abr 1:20: "and utterly destroyed them"
Ms1a - "...and utterly destroyed thesm ..." ("s" was overwritten by "m")
Ms1b - "...and utterly destroyed thesem ..." ("se" was overwritten by "m")

In my view, these was changed to them immediately after Joseph Smith spoke it.

In Daniel McClellan's view, these were dictated from a preexistent document, and the speaker instructed Williams to write "thes", and write an "m" over the "s". Parrish was instructed to write "these", and write an "m" over "es." He was also instructed to place the next word extremely close to the corrected text.

In Will Schryver's view, these were copied from a parent document, and one of the two scribes again decided to disobey the Prophet and not write it exactly as it was on the document. This is teh best evidence against Will's theory that they were trying to make exact copies: the simple fact that they didn't make exact copies!

There are more examples, but these should be enough to get the point across that their proposals are far less likely that the one I offered. To what extent these mysterious "professional text critics" understand these documents and the evidences supporting dictation, we have no idea because none of them have spoken. But I strongly suspect Will is not telling them everything. He never does.

[_Paul Osborne]

edited out

stupid thing to say and too offensive

Paul O

[_CaliforniaKid]

And, seeing as how several of them were clearly selected from the Masonic cipher (with which Phelps, at least, was certainly familiar) it is therefore obvious that they knew these characters were not Egyptian.

You mean from the Anthon transcript?

[_Trevor]

And, seeing as how several of them were clearly selected from the Masonic cipher (with which Phelps, at least, was certainly familiar) it is therefore obvious that they knew these characters were not Egyptian.

You mean from the Anthon transcript?

I have to say, this is the most amazing BS I have ever seen in my life. Will is truly a remarkable guy. Personally, I have no problem with the idea that Joseph Smith may have seen something ancient, or mystical, in Masonic symbols or that they might be related in some way with Egyptian. It would have been fairly standard for his time. I also have no problem with the idea that this belief may have served as a catalyst for the revelation of the Book of Abraham. But I guess we can have none of that in the halls of FAIR, at least not as long as Will is their point man for Book of Abraham apologetics.