Schryver Responds

[_dartagnan]

I'm not so sure that "flock" is a correct transcription. It looks like "flocks" to me. But from these crummy black and white copies it's really next to impossible to tell for sure

Maybe this will help:

Do you agree with my assessment that the second instance seems more rushed than the first?

Absolutely.

Mrs.Williams probably played a prank on the translataion crew, and sent over some choclate chip cookies baked with ex-lax shavings. Williams was able to hold his in a little longer than Parrish. Joseph Smith was dictating from the toilet before calling it quits do to a lack of inspiration.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Mrs.Williams probably played a prank on the translataion crew, and sent over some choclate chip cookies baked with ex-lax shavings. Williams was able to hold his in a little longer than Parrish. Joseph Smith was dictating from the toilet before calling it quits do to a lack of inspiration.

lol!

Thanks for the image. I mean the image of MS 2, not the image of Joseph Smith on the toilet. Where'd you get it?

[_dartagnan]

I hacked Will's computer last year.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I'm afraid to ask whether you're serious or not. :-P

OK. So given that the second instance of this paragraph is messier than the first and appears to have been rushed, I don't think the scribe could have been trying to produce a "cleaner" version of it. If that's what he was doing, then he failed pretty miserably. So what was he doing, from an oral dictation perspective? Maybe we find our answer in Manuscript 1. Here is a transcript of the same passage in that manuscript. I have noted where it follows the first instance in Manuscript 2 and where it follows the second instance. Parrish appears to have incorporated only a few of the differences that appear in the paragraph's second instance. This appears, again, to militate against the idea that the second instance was intended to be a cleaner version.

[Egyptian characters] Who was the daughter of Haran
[Egyptian characters] Now the Lord had [2nd] said unto me [1st]
[Egyptian characters] Abram, get the out of thy country,
[Egyptian characters] and from thy kindred, and [2nd] from
[Egyptian characters] thy fathers house, unto a land that
[Egyptian characters] I will shew thee, therefore I left the
[Egyptian characters] land of Ur of the Chaldees, to go into
[Egyptian characters] the land of canaan, and I took Lot
[Egyptian characters] my brothers [1st] son, and his wife, and
[Egyptian characters] Sarai [1st] my wife and also my father
[Egyptian characters] followed after [1st] me, unto the land
[Egyptian characters] which we denominated Haran
[Egyptian characters] and the famine abated, and my
[Egyptian characters] father tarried in Haran and my wife
[Egyptian characters] elt there, as there were many flocks [1st]
[Egyptian characters] in Haran and my father turned
[Egyptian characters] again unto his Idolitry therefore
[Egyptian characters] he continued in Haran. [1st]
[Egyptian characters] But I Abram and Lot my brothers
[Egyptian characters] son, prayed unto the Lord and the
[Egyptian characters] Lord appeared [2nd] ...

Both manuscript production theories, I suggest, have some serious explaining to do here. On the whole, I'd say that for this particular locus the visual copy crowd has the better case. They have the word "Haran" duplicated in the right place, which is what we would expect from a dittograph. Although they have to explain the omission of the margin characters and the loss of the margin, they have the advantage in that the oral dictation theory has failed to really get its s*** together with respect to this locus. And for good reason. The most obvious explanation for the duplication from a dictation perspective, as we have seen above, doesn't seem to pan out. I don't have a great solution to this problem. What I have is a suggestion, and one that I don't find particularly satisfying.

My suggestion is based not on discrepancies between the paragraphs in Manuscript 2, but on a discrepancy in the characters between the two manuscripts, as shown in the following image:



Notice that a character is missing from the margin of MS 1. My suggestion is that Joseph, while dictating, interpreted the final character on PJS XI row 2 as "Therefore he continued in Haran." But then coming to row 3, he came across a character that appeared to be the same-- or at least to possess the same morphological components-- as the one immediately preceding it. Since the character is the same, one would think it would have the same meaning. Not quite sure what to do with the duplication-- or perhaps thinking that his scribes had misordered the characters-- Joseph Smith ordered Phelps to rewrite the paragraph without the phrase "therefore he continued in Haran," and to place this phrase at the beginning of the next paragraph.

I see two immediate problems for this model. The first is, why rewrite the whole paragraph? Why not just strike out the phrase and rewrite it on the next line? Granted, the way the scribe hurried through the recopying of the paragraph suggests he didn't think it was very important that he get it right or make it pretty. But he didn't have to do it at all, if my suggestion is correct. The second is, why was the phrase "Therefore he continued in Haran" retained at the end of the paragraph in MS 1, even though the character was moved to the next set? Like I said, I am not especially committed to this suggestion and hope that your collective brainpower can improve it or come up with something better. Right now, I am more or less chalking this up as twenty points for the visual copy theorists and negative ten for simultaneous dictation.

Best,

-Chris

[Guest]

Parrish appears to have incorporated only a few of the differences that appear in the paragraph's second instance. This appears, again, to militate against the idea that the second instance was intended to be a cleaner version.

I don't think anyone has ever argued that the second paragraph was supposed to be a "cleaner" version of the first.

On the whole, I'd say that for this particular locus the visual copy crowd has the better case.

Chris, do you realize everyone agrees that this last paragraph was in fact copied? I accept this, and so does Brent. What we don't accept is the idea that this textual phenomenon at the tail end gets to turn the rest of the dictation evidence on its head. In other words, this last paragraph does nothing to suggest the dual set of manuscripts (Ms1a and Ms1b) were copied from a missing Q document. We have to interpret this last piece of evidence in light of all the other evidences, not vice versa.

They have the word "Haran" duplicated in the right place, which is what we would expect from a dittograph.

Yes, and Haran was the last word found in the Parrish manuscript as well, making this perfectly consistent with the explanation I have provided. Smith assigned two scribes because he wanted two copies of the dictated text. So when Parrish was called away from the translation session, the Prophet could have said something to Williams like, "That's OK we're almost done here anyway. Just make a double copy of this last paragraph." This scenario rests on three assumptions, two of which are really beyond dispute: 1) Joseph Smith wanted two copies and 2) they were almost finished. The third is mostly speculative, but it is entirely plausible given the facts above.

Although they have to explain the omission of the margin characters and the loss of the margin, they have the advantage in that the oral dictation theory has failed to really get its s*** together with respect to this locus. And for good reason. The most obvious explanation for the duplication from a dictation perspective, as we have seen above, doesn't seem to pan out.

I'm not sure you entirely understand the dictation perspective - at least mine. You seem to think we've been arguing that the second paragraph was dictated as well. I don't believe that for a second, and neither does Brent.

Notice that a character is missing from the margin of MS 1. My suggestion is that Joseph, while dictating, interpreted the final character on PJS XI row 2 as "Therefore he continued in Haran." But then coming to row 3, he came across a character that appeared to be the same-- or at least to possess the same morphological components-- as the one immediately preceding it. Since the character is the same, one would think it would have the same meaning.

That doesn't seem likely to me. First of all, it isn't the same character. Look:

Secondly, we're looking at a crappy microfilm scan that could have very well truncated the far left portion by accident. For example, take a look at page one and notice that the left edge of the page is not even.

Does page seven cut off a portion of this character?

Thirdly, it isn't really clear how important the characters were for the printer's manuscript and fourthly, the phrase in Manuscript 2 ends the paragraph and doesn't have any Egyptian character in front of it.

Not quite sure what to do with the duplication-- or perhaps thinking that his scribes had misordered the characters-- Joseph Smith ordered Phelps to rewrite the paragraph without the phrase "therefore he continued in Haran," and to place this phrase at the beginning of the next paragraph.

Page 7 of Manuscript 2 (written by Parrish not Phelps) includes this phrase too. It shows up just as it did in the first paragraph of Ms1a page 4. So I guess you lost me here.

I see an immediate problem for this model: why rewrite the whole paragraph?

I already gave a plausible explanation. After losing 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph Smith learned his lesson and took advantage of the fact that he had several people working as his scribes. He wanted double copies of everything. If he lost one like he did with Martin Harris, well then he won't have to retranslate the text again. Maybe his scribes didn't know the reason why, but I am sure they knew he wanted double copies. I think the main reason he didn't want to retranslate the 116 pages was because there was a chance that the first initial translation that Martin Harris lost, might show up again in the future. That would make him falsifiable. He could be put to the test if he had provided a second translation. I say this because all one would need to do is take both translations of the same source and compare them. When it turned out they were talking about two different stories, he would have been proved a fraud. In this case there were no godl plates taken by an angel. There were Egyptian papyri that remained in their possession. He had no excuse for not retranslating a lost copy. So he had multiple scribes work on it during one translation session.

Why not just strike out the phrase and rewrite it on the next line?

What purpose would that serve?

Granted, the way the scribe hurried through the recopying of the paragraph suggests he didn't think it was very important that he get it right or make it pretty.

Right.

But he didn't have to do it at all, if my suggestion is correct.

Your suggestion makes no sense to me. I'm not even sure I understand it.

[_Gadianton]

The problem with your endorsement of Gee, William, is that his rules of engagement render your opinion meaningless. If you cannot pass his tests on Egyptology, then you are not fit to join the conversation. sorry.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Kevin,

Chris, do you realize everyone agrees that this last paragraph was in fact copied?

Yes.

Smith assigned two scribes because he wanted two copies of the dictated text. So when Parrish was called away from the translation session, the Prophet could have said something to Williams like, "That's OK we're almost done here anyway. Just make a double copy of this last paragraph." This scenario rests on three assumptions, two of which are really beyond dispute: 1) Joseph Smith wanted two copies and 2) they were almost finished.

What good would it do to make a duplicate copy of a paragraph on the same page? That doesn't make any sense. What I'm trying to do is provide some kind of rationale for why this was recopied. (But then, I guess my solution ultimately leaves as much or more to be desired than yours does.)

Secondly, we're looking at a crappy microfilm scan that could have very well truncated the far left portion by accident.

That's possible.

-Chris

[_dartagnan]

What good would it do to make a duplicate copy of a paragraph on the same page? That doesn't make any sense.

True, but again we have to consider the possibility that Williams knew Smith wanted double copies, but didn't necessarily know why. Maybe Parrish took off with his papers and Williams had nowhere else to write it, and knowing perfectly well that he wasn't handling a final printer's manuscript, decided to just tack on a double post at the end. Maybe after starting his double post, he started to realize it was meaningless to do that, so he started rushing it through, misspelling words and making it sloppy. One thing is perfectly clear. Williams knew he wasn't going to start on another page. He knew exactly how much text he needed to squeeze in and that is what he was trying to do. In either scenario, the thing doesn't make sense. But we have to accept the fact that he did it anyway without necessarily needing to know why before deducing the dictation evidence that is ubiquitous throughout both mss.

What I'm trying to do is provide some kind of rationale for why this was recopied. (But then, I guess my solution ultimately leaves as much or more to be desired than yours does.)

I understand, but the thing is the copyist theory doesn't provide any model whatsoever and the dozen or so evidences for dictation are irrefutable. Will and Brian haven't even tried to address them. They keep trying to draw attention to anything that cannot be answered definitively, such as the double paragraph, so they can chalk the whole thing up as a mystery.

At least I have provided plausible scenarios. Have you ever heard Will or Brian try to account for these things in the context of a copying effort? While you guys are asking the question "Why would he want two copies?" it seems to fly in the face of the fact that we already know he did. They copying theory supposes that Joseph Smith hired two different scribes to copy a missing Q document. That is how they make sense of the KEP material. So since we already agree Smith was interested in double copies, asking "why" is really pointless. What we need to consider is how much more important would it be to have two copies of the original dictated text? Again, to hire two scribes to copy such a short text seems entirely unrealistic. I mean one guy could have made copies of this thing within a ten minute time frame.

Have they been able to provide a comparable dittograph of this length that begins with a paragraph? Are there any dittographs of any comparable length anywhere in Ms2, which we all know is a manuscript copy? Are there even any comparable dittographs in the hundreds of manuscript pages involved in the Book of Mormon translation, written by an inexperienced scribe? If not, then what are the chances really, that a professional, experienced scribe, would make such a huge blunder as this, in a project of this magnitude, that involved such a small amount of text? We're talking about less than 1000 words here. If we all accept for a fact that Ms2 is a copy, then why is it so perfect when compared to Ms1a and Ms1b, if they are copies too? Where are all the copying errors in Ms2 that Brian insists, "one would expect" from a copy?

Simply calling it a copying error doesn't even scratch the surface of answers needed to satisfiy the dozens of questions their scenario raises. They've provided nothing other than to suggest that since we don't know a definitive answer to this particular phenomenon, that somehow this casts a shadow on all the evidences pointing to dictation. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Guest]

Hi Kevin and Chris,

I hope you don't mind if I add a quick note.

Kevin is correct that a portion of the Egyptian character grouping in BoAbr ms. 2 (fldr. 1), 7.6 is lost due to page erosion. Remnant ink from the lost portion is visible on the left edge of the paper:





You may also be interested in some of my notes on the three parallel texts that you've been discussing (see here).

Kind regards,

</brent>

Edit: Deleted the redundant closing line.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Thanks for the image and the note, Brent. I'll look this over and get back to you later.