KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_AlmaBound]

The dittograph appears at the tail end of one manuscript.

I may have missed it, but has there ever been an explanation (from either camp) as to why the dittograph section is only on one of the manuscripts?

Whether it is a copy or a dictation, this is puzzling.

[_William Schryver]

The "gods of this land" emendation discussed here) also deserves mention, as do the presence of poor or infrequent punctuation and in-line emendations on the manuscripts-- classic hallmarks of dictated manuscripts.

"Classic hallmarks"?

Chris, where is the list of these "classic hallmarks" of dictated manuscripts? Can you please direct me to sources where these "hallmarks" are defined?

Also, Graham asserts that these corrections were made "in transition." I assume you concur. On what basis? What is the evidence you would adduce to demonstrate this phenomenon of a correction made "in transition"?

Thanks.



Edit: Incidentally, I've recently become convinced that you have never really seriously examined these manuscripts. You have simply been parroting the party line for so long you have become convinced that the evidence really does prove these things, without ever having critically examined that evidence. That is a strange course of action for someone who claims to be so objective.

[_Kevin Graham]

I'm about to go to Alabama to visit family until Tuesday, so I don't know what kind of internet access I'll have over the weekend. Just quickly, I wanted to comment on the short responses (Mak, yours will have to wait, it is just too long and requires more time than I have right now)

I may have missed it, but has there ever been an explanation (from either camp) as to why the dittograph section is only on one of the manuscripts? Whether it is a copy or a dictation, this is puzzling.

I don't believe it is from dictation, all indicators point to it being a copy and I have always accepted this. I had thought it was intentional, but I am more and more convinced now that it wasn't. Mak thinks the answer can be found by supposing a mysterious Q document, for which there is no evidence. I don't accept that at this point because evidence is scant, and it begs the question, "why the hell were they dictating and copying the same short manuscript"? Parrish testified that he sat by Joseph Smith and transcribed text as Joseph Smith dictated it to him, and our model fits that picture exactly.

I don't pretend to have the answer as to why the dittograph is there, but I believe the answer probably has more to do with it being a much later emendation (Mak's suggestion earlier). That would explain why the text goes a little beyond what is present in Ms1b, so it could he could have been copying it from Ms2 that had already gone beyond Abr 2:5, and then after realizing he copied the wrong paragraph twice, he started crunching the text and then gave up on it, realizing he screwe dup his manuscript with a dittograph cover half a page. That certainly seems more plausible to me that the need to invent a nonexistent source document, which in my view, raises far more questions that it answers.

Also, Graham asserts that these corrections were made "in transition." I assume you concur. On what basis?

How about common sense?

When a prepared text is later emended, as you propose, you see scratched out words with the correction written above them. Why? Because there would be nowhere else to put them! Will supposes that the person making the error, already knows he is making the error, so he immediately writes in the correction in transition, and then comes back later to scratch out the error. Here, this is a graphic I created a while back but never got around to sharing it because the KEP rage died down and then I got bored with it...

[_beastie]

Will supposes that the person making the error, already knows he is making the error, so he immediately writes in the correction in transition, and then comes back later to scratch out the error. Here, this is a graphic I created a while back but never got around to sharing it because the KEP rage died down and then I got bored with it...

I suppose Will think if he stomps and beats his chest while bellowing loudly enough we won't notice how illogical that is.

[_William Schryver]

Will supposes that the person making the error, already knows he is making the error, so he immediately writes in the correction in transition, and then comes back later to scratch out the error. Here, this is a graphic I created a while back but never got around to sharing it because the KEP rage died down and then I got bored with it...

I suppose Will think if he stomps and beats his chest while bellowing loudly enough we won't notice how illogical that is.

Chest beating and bellowing are irrelevant. It is merely a question of applying text-critical methodologies to the question. That is what I have done. That is what Brian Hauglid, Tom Wayment, Royal Skousen, and others have done.

The "their hearts are turn/ed" locus is one of the two ambiguous cases to which I have referred. The remainder are not ambiguous. The "whereunto unto" locus is a case in point. Just as Oliver Cowdery frequently did in making the printer's copy of the Book of Mormon manuscript, these scribes copied from the parent document everything precisely as it appeared, making no editing decisions during the process of making the copy.

The parent document would have read:

"I sought for mine appointment whereunto unto the Priesthood ..."

And therefore the scribes copied it exactly as it appeared, leaving the editing until later.

This very practice is attested in the printer's copy of the Book of Mormon: What appear to be obvious errors in the original manuscript are reproduced in the printer's copy, and then corrected later. That is precisely what we see in several instances in these Abraham manuscript copies.

Had the correction been made "in transition" while the scribe was taking dictation, "unto" would attest the same tone and volume of ink as does the strikeout of "whereunto". It does not. Although it is obviously an error, "whereunto unto" was written without re-dipping the pen, in a single pass.



There are also instances where an apparent error in the parent was caught and corrected as the copy was being made. (This is what I believe happened in the "their hearts are turned" situation.)

This is also consistent with what is seen in the printer's copy of the Book of Mormon. On occasion, Cowdery even reproduces, in the printer's copy, an obvious error from the original, and then corrects both the copy and the original afterwards.

Again, this is a very common occurrence in scribal copies from the period. The copyist is not supposed to correct errors. He's just supposed to make an exact copy of the original. Editing comes later. That is exactly what we see at several loci in the Abraham manuscripts.

I have done an inventory of the common emendations in Ab2 and Ab3 and will soon be publishing both a video presentation and an article that demonstrates how virtually all of them follow the pattern I have described.

These are not "corrections made in transition as part of a dictation." They are corrections to errors that appeared in the original and which were reproduced in the copy, only to be corrected later--hence the obvious secondary nature of the emendations.

It's really quite a simple concept and explanation, although I have no doubt the closed minds here will find it easy to dismiss. No matter. The case I have built, and the textual evidence to support it, are both strong and persuasive. It has and will yet persuade all open-minded and objective observers.

[_maklelan]

I don't believe it is from dictation, all indicators point to it being a copy and I have always accepted this. I had thought it was intentional, but I am more and more convinced now that it wasn't. Mak thinks the answer can be found by supposing a mysterious Q document, for which there is no evidence.

Actually the dittograph is the evidence. Since you've admitted you can't explain why it's there, and since the only reasonable explanation is because it was a scribal error brought on by homoioteleuton in the parent text, the conclusion is rather sound. You can provide a more logical explanation if you wish, but asserting there's no evidence for a parent text is demonstrably false.

I don't accept that at this point because evidence is scant, and it begs the question, "why the hell were they dictating and copying the same short manuscript"?

I've explained the most likely scenario several times over. Additionally, my theory also allows for complete dictation. In either case, positing a parent text is the only way to account for the dittograph.

Parrish testified that he sat by Joseph Smith and transcribed text as Joseph Smith dictated it to him, and our model fits that picture exactly.

Parrish didn't write the dittograph, Williams did. Additionally, Parrish did not state Smith had no text in front of him, so my model fits it perfectly as well. Additionally, my model provides an explanation for the dittograph, whereas yours leaves you stating that you don't know why the dittograph is there.

I don't pretend to have the answer as to why the dittograph is there, but I believe the answer probably has more to do with it being a much later emendation (Mak's suggestion earlier).

I never proposed it was an emendation of any kind. I said the scribe likely took an extended break from the text, such as over night, over the weekend, etc. You're misrepresenting me. I'm curious if you're just hinting at a solution to throw me off the scent or if you intend to unpack this scenario fully. I think if you sat down to try you'd see just how little sense it makes.

That would explain why the text goes a little beyond what is present in Ms1b, so it could he could have been copying it from Ms2 that had already gone beyond Abr 2:5, and then after realizing he copied the wrong paragraph twice, he started crunching the text and then gave up on it, realizing he screwe dup his manuscript with a dittograph cover half a page.

It's manuscript 4 that goes beyond Abr 2:5. The dittograph occurs in manuscript 2, which is Williams manuscript. He could not have used manuscript 2 as his Vorlage. Your scenario fails, and your ad hoc guessing is starting to manifest desperation. You're messing up manuscript designations and chronology.

That certainly seems more plausible to me that the need to invent a nonexistent source document,

Begging the question. You have no evidence that a source document didn't exist, and you're responding to the evidence for the existence of a source document by just asserting that none existed.

which in my view, raises far more questions that it answers.

However, and for the third time, you are unable to produce a single one of those questions. The above is a fallacy called proof by assertion.

[Guest]

Chris, where is the list of these "classic hallmarks" of dictated manuscripts? Can you please direct me to sources where these "hallmarks" are defined?

Brian Hauglid's list here, for one-- though originally that list comes from Royal Skousen. I don't fully agree with the way Brian characterizes all of them or applies them to the Abr mss, but the list itself is fairly sound.

Also, Graham asserts that these corrections were made "in transition." I assume you concur. On what basis? What is the evidence you would adduce to demonstrate this phenomenon of a correction made "in transition"?

As I said before, I am not fully decided as to the relationship between all the Abr mss, and so don't really care to debate the issue until I can get my hands on Brian's publication and give it some more intensive study of my own.

Edit: Incidentally, I've recently become convinced that you have never really seriously examined these manuscripts. You have simply been parroting the party line for so long you have become convinced that the evidence really does prove these things, without ever having critically examined that evidence. That is a strange course of action for someone who claims to be so objective.

You don't know me. You don't know how much I have examined the manuscripts, you don't know what I am convinced of, and you don't know what I claim to be.

Good luck in your future studies,

-Chris

[_Kevin Graham]

And therefore the scribes copied it exactly as it appeared, leaving the editing until later. This very practice is attested in the printer's copy of the Book of Mormon

Which is why I said Will's argument must assume:

In the Will/Hauglid view, the scribes were copying a source document and either (a) coincidentally copied the document incorrectly, exactly the same way or (b) they were told to make a xerox copy of an already error-ridden manuscript (meaning for some strange reason they decided they needed at least three copies of an error-ridden manuscript, from two different scribes)

Forgetting the fact that this scenario is preposterous, let's go ahead for the sake of argument and take Will's suggestion to its logical conclusion.

According to Will, these manuscripts represent identical representations of the original Book of Abraham manuscript. This effectively makes them a carbon copy of what they are denying they are! So what's the difference? We've been arguing that these prove Joseph Smith wasn't able to translate Egyptian based on the fact that these documents prove they were translation manuscripts. Will comes along ans says "nuh uh, these were exact copies of the original manuscripts!" Again, so how does this in any way help the apologists who are trying to distance Joseph Smith from the project and pin it on the scribes? If all these words are identical to teh original source document, then so too must the Egyptian characters, since we already know they were written before each corresponding English translation and the scribes were meticulous in their transcription and placement of these characters.

Although Will's theory makes it too easy for the critics to pin this on Smith's inability to translate, I don't believe these are secondary emendations because it just makes no sense given the nature of these errors. How does he explain the instances where the same mistakes are not identical? Will would have to require two different original documents since the scribes obviously were not interested in making their copies identical. So now Will is left with arguing that they are supposed to be exact copies as far as the grammatical errors were concerned, but not necessarily exact copies with respect to spelling. In other words, he is creating a double standard to fit his predetermined conclusion.

Yes we know there were two manuscripts for the Book of Mormon, and we have the original and printers manuscripts represented in the KEP manuscripts as well. The only reason to suppose ANOTHER copy is apologetic necessity. They can't afford to have it known, so it much be missing, same as the ridiculous missing roll theory.

If Will insists the Book of Mormon's printer's manuscript was a careful xerox reproduction of the errors in the original manuscript, then he is being deceptive again, because that is not true at all. There are some similar errors as one would expect from an inexperienced scribe tryinig to copy such a long text, but nothing like what Will requires to be represented in the KEP. Oh, and why the hell are they making so many friggin copies of error-ridden texts? Will never explains this. Are these errors part of the enciphering process?

[_Trevor]

Although I suspect this will be dismissed as yet another "vague meta-methodological" objection, I will inject this point anyway. Maklelan, if I am reading him correctly, proposes a scenario in which Joseph Smith read one manuscript to two scribes to facilitate the speedy manufacture of two copies. Then, in the case of the homoioteleuton, the reader accidentally re-read a portion of his manuscript (and got fairly far before he realized it), or was given the manuscript to look at and accidentally recopied a passage in error.

Since it is my belief that historical or "external" evidences do matter in understanding the text, I think it is important to poke at the underlying assumptions about the proposed dictation or transcription. Therefore, I pose the following questions, with my preliminary answers that await refutation by those more experienced in these areas:

1) Joseph Smith seemed to be deeply concerned about inaccuracies in the scriptures. To quote him:

I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors

Given his concern, is it more or less likely that he would rely on a method of transmission that was bound to introduce errors into the text? What was the purpose of producing three manuscripts that were more likely to disagree with each other because of the unreliability of the method?

2) Is there any reason to suppose that circumstances required relying on such an unreliable method? Mak says that the reason is for speed, but why was speed necessary? Is there a historical explanation for this? After spending months working with these documents and the pure language, why haste at this point?

3) Again, the scribal tradition surrounding the biblical text (and here, again, I am not an expert) seems to me to have been one of copying from an exemplar as accurately as possible, with the errors introduced coming from misreading, skipping of the eye, nodding off, etc. Given that tradition, and Joseph Smith's apparent awareness of it, why would Joseph have taken so little care in providing for greater accuracy in the transmission of the supposed Ur manuscript of the Book of Abraham, chapters 1-2.x?

Unless there is a compelling reason to suppose that, instead of copying the Ur manuscript on sight, exigencies forced Joseph to make haste and forgo his usual concern with the accuracy of sacred text, then I think that maklelan's theory is problematic. Indeed, I should think that one must either account for the evidences for dictation as Will is attempting to do, thus showing that there is visual copying going on, or one must account for the dittography and then accept the evidence for dictation.

I would want to see some evidence that, contrary to his stated philosophy concerning the accuracy of the scriptures, instances of him transmitting a translation of ancient writings through reading from the Ur manuscript to the scribes. Then I would be more willing to entertain that theory. Otherwise, it looks like that magic bullet to me.

Finally, concerning orthography. I have never doubted that orthography in the 19th century was not standardized. In spite of that Joseph Smith thought it was important to spell out the names of figures in the Book of Mormon. And, again, although a scribe may follow his own lights in putting what he hears to writing, he is less likely to deviate from the manuscript he is copying. Or am I wrong? Anyway, I think this is problematic for Will, but obviously not for maklelan and his dictation from a written manuscript model.

[_William Schryver]

Chris, where is the list of these "classic hallmarks" of dictated manuscripts? Can you please direct me to sources where these "hallmarks" are defined?

Brian Hauglid's list here, for one-- though originally that list comes from Royal Skousen. I don't fully agree with the way Brian characterizes all of them or applies them to the Abr mss, but the list itself is fairly sound.

Also, Graham asserts that these corrections were made "in transition." I assume you concur. On what basis? What is the evidence you would adduce to demonstrate this phenomenon of a correction made "in transition"?

As I said before, I am not fully decided as to the relationship between all the Abr mss, and so don't really care to debate the issue until I can get my hands on Brian's publication and give it some more intensive study of my own.

Edit: Incidentally, I've recently become convinced that you have never really seriously examined these manuscripts. You have simply been parroting the party line for so long you have become convinced that the evidence really does prove these things, without ever having critically examined that evidence. That is a strange course of action for someone who claims to be so objective.

You don't know me. You don't know how much I have examined the manuscripts, you don't know what I am convinced of, and you don't know what I claim to be.

Good luck in your future studies,

-Chris

As I have mentioned several times already, I will be producing a detailed narrated slideshow presentation about the dittograph on page 4 of Ab2 (followed by other video slideshows treating upon various KEP-related arguments). When it is available for public viewing, I will then invite you and Brent to engage in a debate with me and Dan McClellan (should he so desire) concerning the arguments and evidence I will present in the video presentation. This debate will be confined to just us four--no others unless we mutually decide to invite them. My thoughts at the moment are to present this information and conduct these debates on a new blog site I have created, but not yet announced.

Will you be interested in doing something like that? It won't require you to reply instantly to anything. It will consist of a leisurely, at-your-own-pace, discussion via blog, and I, for one, commit myself to dial down the rhetoric to somewhere near 1 or 2 on the dial--which is pretty good, considering my rhetoric amp "goes to eleven." ;-)