Anyway, to my brief remarks to the recent flurry of Hauglid, Gee, and Schryver Are Idiots threads:
Graham presents an excellent summary of several of the elements in KEPA #2 and #3 that seem consistent with an oral dictation scenario. I am quite aware of each of these examples, and I freely acknowledge that, if considered in isolation from the evidences for visual copying, these examples would be sufficient to convince one that these documents appear to be the result of a dictation session with two scribes writing simultaneously. It is my acknowledgement of these things that is at the root of what I wrote to him here:
"…if I were an outsider looking in at all of this, I find it difficult to believe that I could be persuaded that the production of the Book of Abraham was anything other than a clumsy imposture perpetrated by Joseph Smith upon his followers.”
Kevin also quotes extensively from posts I made in May 2006 on the old FAIR message board. Looking back on those posts, I recognize several inaccuracies – almost all of them due to the fact that I was, at the time, relying on what others had written concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I think that perhaps Graham would be sympathetic in such things, since he produced one of the papers I read at the time – a paper which he now vigorously disavows. Would he think it appropriate if we were to hold his feet to the flames of the statements he made in that paper? Or is it more likely he would insist that we accept his subsequent intellectual evolution in regards to these questions?
Nevertheless, I stand by the majority of the things I wrote and believed two years ago, while still demanding the privilege to have changed my mind in the interim as regards many aspects of these enigmatic documents.
I also wish to correct a misconception that Graham seems intent on perpetuating. When I wrote:
I know precisely what the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are (contrary to your previous assertion). It's just that I view them as being utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. I've examined the contents of the KEP at length -- and doing so hasn't persuaded me one iota that the Book of Abraham is anything except what it claims to be.
Although I might have been more explicit in my description, and can therefore appreciate the origins of the misunderstanding, I meant nothing more or less than that I had examined the inventory of the KEP – not the documents themselves. As Graham correctly notes, nothing else was available at the time. The inventories I read provided me with a list of the various documents, along with their respective authors, and a brief summary of what each document contained.
I hope this clarifies things sufficiently that I will no longer be accused of something I did not claim.
Since then, I have been fortunate enough to obtain and examine images of some of the KEP inventory – specifically KEPA #2 and #3 (Metcalfe’s 1a and 1b). While my images are not nearly as highly-resolved as those possessed by Dr. Hauglid and others working on the critical edition, they are superior to any others available to the general public. I would characterize them as being roughly equivalent, if not superior, in detail quality to the Metcalfe photos, and unquestionably superior to those photos in terms of color accuracy and brightness/contrast.
Now, in terms of the specific arguments that Graham makes, I only intend to make some brief remarks.
Evidence for Dictation – Common Emendations
As indicated above, I acknowledge these common emendations, and the strength that they lend to the simultaneous dictation argument.
Hieratic Morpheme Placement
Graham quotes me as follows:
The characters are not always associated with a discrete paragraph.
Although I do not consider this issue an important one in any substantive respect, it is an observation that I still consider accurate. Graham’s attempted rebuttal is based on an incomplete survey of the evidence. But until I am at liberty to post images from the documents in question, I am unfortunately unable to prove my assertion. In any case, I do not believe this to be a very important issue. It was merely an observation that I have made during the course of my careful examination of these two documents. In several cases, there is no rhyme or reason to the placement of the morphemes in the left-hand column – although I acknowledge that the placement is consistent between both documents.
Evidence for Visual Copying
Graham, in an attempt to establish my bona fides as one who speaks with “bombastic certitude,” quotes me as follows:
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).
Why exactly Graham chooses to characterize my statement as “bombastic” must be left to you readers to decide. I will consent that my approach is almost certainly irenic.
In any case, Graham’s counter argument is this:
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.
Perhaps he missed the extensive thread wherein Dan Vogel and I debated some aspects of this question. The focus of the discussion eventually centered on what appears to be an obvious case of visual dittography on page 4 of Ms. #2. I had identified the homoioteleutons that demarked the dittograph, and subsequently presented my analysis to Dr. Royal Skousen, whom I considered a reliable source of text-critical expertise. Dr. Skousen replied as follows, in an e-mail which he specifically authorized me to publicly cite:
”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
The only rebuttal attempted by anyone, to my knowledge, has been to insinuate that Dr. Skousen’s confirmation was apologetically motivated, and that visual dittography never manifests itself in such a fashion.
This particular dittograph is probably the single strongest piece of evidence in Ms. #2 that argues for the hypothesis of visual copying. If there is an explanation for this dittograph within the oral dictation paradigm, I have yet to hear it.
In any case, it is not the only evidence for visual copying. We have also discussed the dittograph on page 2 of this same document. I intend to revisit that particular discussion in a thread to be commenced in the Pundits forum of the MAD board early next week. After that discussion, I will initiate a thread to revisit the page 4 dittograph to which I refer above. Hopefully Metcalfe will choose to honor us with his explanations for these two particular anomalous aspects of Ms. #2 – and to specifically detail how they can be explained within the oral dictation paradigm.
The salient point in all of this is that it is insufficient to merely present the arguments for dictation without taking into consideration the evidence that conflicts with that conclusion. Unfortunately, that is what Graham has done here. I understand why he has done this. In the first place, he is convinced of the hypothesis. But, perhaps more importantly, he has never been in a position to consider the conflicting evidence. Metcalfe has assiduously avoided ever publishing any images of these troublesome areas of the documents, and therefore he has controlled the possible conclusions which can be reached by those who have followed these issues.
With the relatively-imminent publication of a critical edition of the KEP, it will finally be possible for this debate to be placed, once and for all, in the public realm. I look forward to that time. I’m sure there are many people, much more capable than I at these things, who will then point out other aspects of these documents that demonstrate the untenability of the oral dictation hypothesis. Until then, I will be considerably hamstrung in demonstrating my personal reasons for having concluded that the Ashment/Metcalfe theory of oral dictation cannot satisfactorily explain these manuscripts.
For now, Graham and others will be free to make wild accusations such as:
I should point out that Will cannot be trusted in any sense …
But all he effectively does by making such irresponsible comments is to assure that he will continue in the position he currently occupies on the outside of this discussion looking in. Quite frankly, Graham is ignorant of everything except those controlled bits of information that Metcalfe has carefully portioned out over the years. He cannot speak to the issues because he is not familiar with the source materials. Of course, that is not his fault. Very few people have been able to look at these things, and many of those who have had some access to them have not reached correct conclusions, or have reached incomplete conclusions. Certainly Nibley was one of these. I acknowledge having been informed incorrectly, at the start, by assuming that everything written in The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers was accurate. It clearly was not. That said, it is not the entirely unreliable treatise it has been made out to be by some, including my friend Chris Smith. Indeed, I am inclined to believe that Nibley will yet be vindicated in terms of his proposed theory for the origins of these documents.
My final comment for your consideration is this: Brent Metcalfe has had an excellent photographic collection of the complete inventory of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers since the early 1980s. If the case for oral dictation is as certain as many of you are inclined to believe, why do you suppose Metcalfe has not used his photos to prove this before now?
I believe I know why.
.
.
.
The Dude:
Will Schryver is an amateur.
I have never pretended otherwise. Indeed, I revel in my amateur status.
He hasn't even been to college …
This is not true. I never finished my undergraduate work in Middle East Studies (with a Hebrew emphasis) at the University of Utah, although I was named Middle East Studies student of the year before I withdrew to pursue my life-long career as a software developer. Although I sometimes regret having left when I did, and I still aspire to ultimately finish my degree, I suspect that there was a lot more money to be made in writing software than there would possibly have been as a professor of Middle East Studies, and therefore my somewhat-materialistic daughters are probably grateful for my decision.
How does Will get away with this in their company?
On charm alone, no doubt. ;-)
I also commend Trevor’s remarks pertaining to this question:
There are many non-professional scholars who have made great or at least respectable contributions in subjects usually reserved for academic interest.
.
.
.
Kevin Graham:
… he produced "The Circle Jerky Boys" …
Is that listed in the IMDB database?
All I know is that he is completely clueless about computer networking …
Mmmm. I admit that sometimes successful networking can be an aggravation, and my experience in the field has been limited to a “home network” environment – I am not a networking specialist -- still I learned long ago that, in a dynamic-acquisition IP situation, one can unplug a DSL modem for about ten minutes, then plug it back in and it will obtain a different IP address than the one it had before. That, of course, is the nature of a dynamic IP address. And, unless a website blocks the entire range of IP addresses from your ISP, you may thereby circumvent a website IP block. But perhaps KG knows more about such things than I. If so, I will yield to his superior understanding of this topic.
.
.
.
By the way, I have heard it claimed quite often in this venue that I was simultaneously “insulting” Dan Vogel under the moniker of “Provis” while communicating with him via e-mail using my real name. And yet, I have yet to see one single example of the “insults” I allegedly was heaping on him. I hereby challenge anyone to produce a specimen of these “insults” directed towards the esteemed Mr. Vogel during the time in question.
I will anxiously await the production of this evidence, and if it is not forthcoming, I would expect that this tired little gem of mythology will be forever laid to rest.
.
.
.
Late addition:
Graham:
So how has Will examined this "under greater magnification"?
Dr. Hauglid is able to greatly magnify – digitally – his super-high-resolution uncompressed image files. It was in this fashion that he viewed the question “under greater magnification” and gave a tentative confirmation to my observation. It remains to be confirmed with the originals.