Since Brian doesn't seem to see the "bombastic certitude" expressed by Schryver, then allow me to point it out. I'll simply go through William's opening post and respond to the problems I see with his commments. From the beginning:
One of the standard critical arguments in relation to the Book of Abraham controversy is that the Book of Abraham supposedly links itself to the so-called “Sensen” (or “Book of Breathings Made by Isis”) text via its apparent internal reference to Facsimile #1, which is known to have originally preceded the Sensen text on the scroll of Hor. While the overall length of the scroll of Hor is a disputed question, we do know that the scroll begins with the illustration known as Facsimile #1, which was then immediately followed by the Sensen text, which was then followed by an unknown length of scroll.
What William and the rest of the apologetic camp seems to have completely overlooked, is the fact that this is not a uniquely "critical argument." This is how the Church has understood the relationship between Facsimile #1 and the Book of Abraham for more than a century. Every published version of the Book of ABraham has an opening page containing a blown up image of facsimile #1 (with Smith's corresponding and erroneous translations). The reason? Because the Book of Abraham 1:12 "links itself" to this papyrus.
The critics claim that additional strength is given their argument by the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. The documents known respectively as KEPA #2 and #3 each contain text of a little more than the first chapter of the Book of Abraham in the main body of their pages, and successive characters from the Sensen text in the left column.
Right.
Of course, the critical argument, originating with Edward Ashment decades ago
Who was at the time a faithful, practicing Mormon who was hired by the Church to study and analyze these documents.
has been that these two KEPA manuscripts are actually the transcripts of Joseph Smith’s orally-dictated “translation” of the Book of Abraham. And since we now know that the Sensen text has nothing to do with Abraham, then it follows that Joseph Smith’s purported “translation” was nothing of the sort; it is a fictionalized account originating in the mind of a pretended prophet. Or so the critics would have us believe.
Yes, qand Will's lkast statement is a rhetorical technique (or so they would have us believe) which alludes to a promise of refutation. But the refutation never becomes realized. We just get more rheotorical allusions to credulity of the "critical argument."
Upon closer examination, however, some key questions must be considered:
Is it incontrovertible that KEPA #2 and #3 are transcripts of an oral dictation?
Is Abraham 1:12 an incontrovertible internal reference to Facsimile #1?
First and foremost, these are apologetic questions raised for apologetic reasons. These are not questions that would naturally cause investigation. But since the consequences of the "critical argument" would otherwise prove destructive to faith, these questions are raised for the purposes of complicating what is rather simple to understand. And Will's "upon closer examination" is just more rhetoric. What he really means is "since we need to avoid the obvious conclusion at all costs."
We have previously examined question #1, and I have presented persuasive evidence that both of these manuscripts cannot be, in fact, simultaneously-produced transcripts of an oral dictation.
Here is the bombastic certitude Brent spoke of. Will has presented nothing new in two years to suggest this proposition is false. He just keeps fighting it with silly rhetoric against the "critical argument." Before WIll even gets into his so-called analysis and list of evidences, he already declares a conclusion with bombastic certitude.
Despite certain elements that admittedly appear consistent with a dictation theory, there are numerous compelling, even overriding, evidences that establish these documents as being visual copies of some earlier document(s).
Again with the bombastic certitude. Compelling evidences? Overriding? To whom? Will states again that his theory has been "established" as a fact, yet one is hard pressed to find a single piece of evidence that clearly points in that direction. All we get is pages of rhetorical fluff.
Yet, when I asked Brian Hauglid to explain how the evidences pointing to a dictation scenario were to be explained, he simply asserted that they could be explained in the context of a copying session. He didn't explain why, he just asserted. And when i pressed him toi explain, I was reprimanded by the moderators for violating the "asked and answered" rule. Two years later neither of them have provided any real explanations. Will just keeps trying to make his proposal sound more plausible by trying to ridicule the "critics" for not considering other questions "after careful examination" of course.
Although I anticipate revisiting that topic in the near future, it will not be a subject for our current discussion.
What "discussion"? Nobody ever engages Will in what can only be described as "lectures," except Chris Smith, and he has already spent many, many posts refuting his nonsense over the years. Will just pretends none of this has already been dealt with.
Will then spends the rest of his long-winded post arguing something we never disagreed with. But he leaps to teh conclusion that the insertion was "perhaps much later," which is supported by zero evidences. It is just his own bombastic assertion. And apparently Will provided an erroneous transcription and Brent called him on it, but Will doesn't seem to understand what he transcribed incorrectly. I thought this was a guy who had access to the "highly digitized scan".
Furthermore, I should point out that Will cannot be trusted in any sense because he has a documented history of making bombastic statements which he clearly knows nothing about. Hi is so obviously wrong it can only be assumed he is willfully trying tod eceive his audience with rhetoric. Here is just one example. About a year ago he made the following statement in reference to the relationship between the KEP characters and the english text:
The characters are not always associated with a discrete paragraph. It is especially evident with Williams' Ms. #2. The final two characters at the bottom of the first page are not clearly associated with the text. They appear to have been placed entirely at random in relationship to the text. They are not aligned with a paragraph break, nor the beginning of a sentence, nor even a specific line.
This is clearly false for anyone who has actually seen this manuscript page. Here is a scan of the microfilm of manuscript 1a, page 1, in the handwriting of Williams. It is horrible to be sure, but it serves the purpose of refuting Will’s arrogance.
Will says the last two characters are clearly placed "at random" ??
How does he explain the fact that manuscript 1b is nearly identical in placing the same Egyptian characters at the exact same corresponding points? What is so "random" about this? Who says a character has to represent the beginning of a new paragraph or sentence anyway? He then told Don Bradly to go study the photos like he has or else he is just blowing smoke!
In several cases in Williams' Ms. #2, the characters appear to be placed with much uncertainty -- as though the scribe didn't have any idea what their specific relationship was to the English text in the body of the document.
If you take a look at the third circled character from the top (image above), you will notice that this character doesn’t come before a new paragraph, nor des it come before a new sentence, verse or line. In fact, this would be the only example that could possibly be used to support Will’s claim that characters were thrown about at random with no apparent correlation to the English text. The verse this character covers is Abraham 1:5, but Abraham 1:5 is as follows:
“My fathers, having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given unto them, unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen, utterly refused to hearken to my voice;”
According to this manuscript a new character is placed in mid-sentence. If you look at the style of the writer, the sentences generally continue to the end of the page if they are long enough to do so, but in this manuscript this sentence stops short at the word “heathen,” leaving the rest of the sentence (“utterly refused to hearken to my voice”) for another line. What does this mean? Well, once we consider the Parrish manuscript (Ms1b folder 3) the verdict becomes all the more clearer:
It seems perfectly clear to me that these two examples are best explained as a transcription process whereby Joseph Smith stopped dictating at “heathen,” he then told his scribes to insert the next character. So they stopped at heathen wherever they happened to be on that particular line, and then continued on to finish the verse on the next line adjacent with the corresponding character.
Not only does this anecdote refute Will’s pet theory, but it also adds more evidence to the already mounting pile of evidences in favor of the dictated transcription position. After all, who could imagine someone break a sentence in half like that while copying from a source document? Will deals with none of this. Instead, he is throwing all his eggs in the same apologetic basket that supposes the Book of Abraham translation must have everything or nothing to do with the Book of Mormon translation process. Meaning, if one aspect of the critical argument has no parallel with the Book of Mormon translation process, then they think it is safe to throw it out altogether as "unsupported."
Hell, even the entire Book of Mormon translation process wasn't consistent with itself, but they need to insist that the Book of Abraham translation be consistent with not only itself, but also the Book of Mormon translation. What a crazy argument. [/img]
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein