KEP Debate in Pundits

[_CaliforniaKid]

Trevor,

See the last image I posted. This shows the bottom of MS 2, page 1. The passage we are arguing about is the fifth line from the bottom, inside the purple box. The issue under examination is when and why this "insertion" was added to the manuscript.

-Chris

[_dartagnan]

Three things happen in MS 2 after the word "alter". First of all, there is almost no space between "alter" and the "I" that begins the next phrase.

True. But I think that was the point where Williams' eyes glanced elsewhere.

Secondly, the "I" is abnormally small.

Another indicator that his eyes had been removed from the text. by the way, have you tried this? Try writing something from memory, like the lyrics to a favorite song, and then after writing a few lines, look around the room while still putting your thoughts to pen. Two things are bound to occur. The letter size will change as well as the trajectory of the line. It is an automatic given.

And thirdly, the text here strays upward quite abruptly-- too abruptly, I think, to have been accidental. My opinion is that the change here is intentional.

But if Williams was intentionally trying to squeeze everything after "alter" (i.e."I will refer you to...") into the space to the right, then he could have done so without making the sentence jet upwards in an angle, eventually crashing into the line above. That seems like superfluous sloppiness. There was enough room to even out the lines horizontally.

See how easy that was? And I used a font larger than Williams' writing in that instance.

I have one other reason for disagreeing with Kevin. He thinks that the interlinear insertion starting at "(commencement..." was made in order to restore the balance of the text. That may be so, but I prefer to explain this as something Williams did out of necessity. (I should add that even though I disagree with Kevin's model, I do not think it unreasonable.) Here's my theory:

OK, let's walk through this one step at a time.

1) Joseph dictates the preceding line up to the word "alter," at which point he stops and says, "next character." Both scribes finish writing the paragraph.
2) Having finished writing the paragraph, the scribes now need to copy the next margin character from the papyrus into their manuscript margins. Williams goes first; Parrish is waiting his turn.

Which you suspect ended with "alter," correct?

3) While Williams is in the middle of drawing the character, Joseph says, "No, wait. Add 'I will refer you to the representation that is lying before you' to that last paragraph."Since Williams is occupied drawing the character, Parrish starts writing the additional line a little before Williams does. This accounts for Parrish being a bit ahead of Williams.

Parrish was the more experienced scribe. That adequately explains why he was ahead of Williams. And I have difficulty picturing this situation. It seems if Joseph Smith made a translation error, he would have caught it in the transition of his translation, and not during an intermediate break when the scribes were preparing for the next segment.

I suspect it took at least a minute to copy an Egyptian character with such precision. According to your proposal, Joseph Smith didn't catch his error in transition, but instead, after Williams had written an Egyptian character. What's Joseph Smith doing offering more translation when he knows his own scribes are not prepared?

And why couldn't Williams have simply erased the Egyptian character as we saw in other pages? He would have then continued writing the "corrected" text without worrying about space. That would have prevented the superfluous sloppiness .

4) Williams finishes drawing the next Egyptian character, then crams the additional English phrase into the space at the end of the previous paragraph so as not to throw his English text out of alignment with the just-drawn character.
5) Joseph Smith says, "No, make it 'at the commencement of this record' instead of "that is lying before you'."

Well, in my experience, the more complicated an explanation gets, the less likely it seems to be. That has been the basis of much of my rejection of apologetics. I think your proposal is pretty good, but if true, then it means there were two translation errors in a single line, one of which involved the omission of an entire phrase. The way I picture it, there was only one translation error, it didn't involve the ommision of an entire phrase, and it was caught in transition. The discrepancies between Ms1a and Ms1b can be explained with a single proposal: Parrish was a faster scribe. That's it.

I think the phrase was simply reinterpreted during the flow of dictation. I believe that is more consistent with the overall picture I think.

Having said all that, I don't think it is really important what people choose to accept. I just try to come up with scenarios that account for as much of the evidence as possible, without begging too many questions. Will's scenarios explain absolutely nothing, yet raise more questions. They are designed to obfuscate. He is not interested in really getting down to the bottom of these KEP. The idea from the apologetic camp is to make it all a mystery not worth arguing over.

[_dartagnan]

OMG, has anyone read Will's last post at MADB?

I'm laughing my ass off at this moron. This guy is truly unbelievable. More bombastic certitude and now he is going back to attacking Metcalfe's credentials.

He is back to arguing, "The critics have argued X but refuse to deal with the man compelling evidences I have provided." Bla bla bla.

I'll deal with all of it Will, just bring your cowardly butt back over here and stop hiding at MADB.

Brent left the discussion because Brian won't debate him. It is that simple. He kept trying to get BRian to lay out his argument but he never would. Brian has learned from past experience, and is afraid to be held accountable for his stupid comments. Brian keeps beating about the bush, after 7 threads he doesn't lay out his position and answer direct questions. He is hiding behind you. You're clearly someoen who has lied about the evidence and is not really worth Brent's time. Brent can spend days making you look even dumber but everyone wants to see a one on one with Brent and Brian. You have no basis whatsoever to proclaim knowledge or familiarity with anything related to the KEP. Remember, you just jumped into this thing two years ago. Before that point you didn't even know what the KEP were. You can't even handle a debate with me for crying out loud, so why would Brent waste his time with you, especially when you don't even have access to the collection under dispute?

Will says,

it can no longer be suggested that the text of the Book of Abraham self-references to the so-called “Book of Breathings.”

What a stupid ass statement. The Book of Abraham does self-reference to the Joseph Smith papyri. This is established fact, and it isn't just something the "critics" say. It is something the freaking Book of Abraham says and every published version which places an image of the Facsimile at the "commencement" of the book. Is the Church going to stop publishing it this way because of Will's wild theory?

And the worst thing about their apologetic is that the whole time we kept hearing about how the KEP had nothing to do with the oriiginal translation of the Book of Abraham, and now, when they think they found something to work in their favor, suddenly one textual anomaly "definitively" proves something about the "original" translation!!!

To be sure, Will's so called "compelling" evidences amounts to a single piece of speculation, supported by a bald assertion, with a dash of bombastic certitude. That's it! That's all he has.

It is hilarious just how badly the apologists have it right now. They are forced to say the scripture found in the Book of Abraham is actually wrong! Now they are bending over backwards trying to divorce this portion from the "original" translation.

[_dartagnan]

I would also like to note, for the record, that to this point I have been responsible for the identification of at least two significant text critical elements in Williams’ Ms. #2:

OMG, has there ever been a more salient example of gloating? This is what he thinks he is responsible for:

I was the one who made the initial observation that the 'parenthesis' appeared to overwrite the word in the line below it. The significance of that finding has been explained above.

Not only has this not been proved, it seems perfectly obvious to anyone with eyes that Brent's argument is dead on. And when did WIll make this initial "observation"? The only time I saw him talking about it was after Brent raised the point. In any event the ink clearly drags as the lower letter comes up and hits the so-called "parenthesis." Will now tells us of some unverified, mysterious microscopic "confirmation" performed by God knows who. Gee, where have we heard this before? Wasn't John Gee the "ink expert" when he said the Egyptian were written in a different ink than the English? Brian Hauglid is not an expert in ink analysis. He is not even an expert in textual criticsm. He might be the closest thing they have at BYU, but he certainly isn't qualified to make the kinds of analyses necessary in the case of the KEP.

He teaches Islam and religion, not forensic document analysis. As far as this so-called "confirmation" via microscope, he isn't elaborating on what method he used and how he reached his conclusion. I can't even begin to imagine how simply looking at the segment through a microscope would determine which ink line of two crossing lines, came first. It seems the only plausible way to make such a determination would be to follow the ink flow and see where the ink was dragged.

But again, Brian doesn't explain. And again, Will is be being set up as the patsy. For when it turns out this was just another exercise in apologetic chest beating, and the argument is disproved, Hauglid can't be held accountable for the goof, because he won't come right out and make his argument. So, Will has to keep taking hits for the team.

I was the one who identified the homoioteleuton ("Haran") that demarks the large dittograph on page 4 of this same manuscript, thus establishing it as a definitive evidence of visual copying, rather than simultaneous dictation.

As I already noted previously, Ashment and Metcalfe already saw this a long time ago. Hauglid noted it too when he and I were debating two years ago, before Will started his reading on the material. Will's bombastic certitude about it being "definitive" evidence in support of his dittograph theory, is again a perfect example of his theories driving the evidence. For Will it is "definitive" because he needs it to be. This dittograph is his last chance to claim any kind of contribution in the overall debate. But the fact that he has Hauglid eating out of his hand, says more about the destitute nature of current Book of Abraham apologetics.

Whether or not these two examples of the results of my brief studies of the documents qualify me as an “expert” is not the issue. I have never pretended to be more than an “amateur.” However, despite my acknowledged lack of “professional credentials,” my dedication to study coupled with my unique access to high-quality images has produced very tangible results.

Yea, more embarrassment for Book of Abraham apologetics.

[_dartagnan]

I am, to my knowledge, one of fewer than a dozen people in the world at the present time who has unfettered access to high-quality images of these manuscripts (KEPA Mss. #2 and #3).

ROFL!

If that's true, then why doesn't he ever present anything but crappy black and white snippets? And why did Brian Hauglid recently state that Will only has access to "inferior images"?

So who is lying here?

[_dartagnan]

Hauglid is clearly reading this, since he snagged a citation above for his signature line.

Brian, don't you find it a bit odd that you refuse to engage Brent on the issue? You always beat about the bush, and you never answer direct questions. You did the same thing with me two years ago in August when I asked you to explain your methodology for determining the textual phenomena in the KEP point to copyist errors. All you did was maintain the same position that they are equally explainable as copyist errors, but you never wanted to elaborate on how you determined that. Two years later and nothing is new. You guys keep pretending you're doing "ongoing research," but we know for a fact that you never even bothered to study this instance where the"parenthesis" crosses under the "h." This proves to me that you are letting Brent guide your "research." You're only interested in researching the matter to the extent that you're trying to shoot down anything he says. That was your agenda from the very beginning. Will admitted this in 2006, before he knew diddly about the KEP. He made it clear his "objective" was to prove Brent wrong. You clearly entered the debate in June of 2006 just to find out what it was the apologetic side really needed to establish. When you figured out that it would be a tremendous help if the KEP could be shown to be "copies," then you went on a crusade to make sure that is what the evidence showed. And of course, you keep hiding your reaerch and methodlogy from everyone who wants to know if they are being taken for a ride again.

You keep saying Brent should deal with Will because it is Will's thread. What a dumb complaint. Brent engaged you in that discussion. He ignored Will's attempt to engage him twice before finally responding. You already admitted Will's arguments are flawed, so why teh hell should Brent engage him? He's a moron and he lies. This is a demonstrable fact.

Why do you keep using Will as a patsy?

You're in the discussion, so why do you have to tell Will that he is now "authorized" to share your "discovery"? Why can't you do it? And yes, you're not an expert in ink analysis. You're jumping on this boat only because of the KEP. You teach Religion and Islam and maybe Arabic. And according to your own students, you're a boring disinterested professor (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRat ... 273&page=3) . So why should anyone believe you're going to teach us anything of importance regarding the KEP?

You know nothing about forensic document analysis. And even if you did, you have already demonstrated a willingness to approach the matter as subjectively as humanly possible. You made your agenda clear two years ago, and you have been letting your predetermined conclusions drive your "research" ever since.

[_Chap]

Will says,

it can no longer be suggested that the text of the Book of Abraham self-references to the so-called “Book of Breathings.”

What a stupid ass statement.

What an unsubtle reader dartagnan is ...

Those of us who have learned how to read between the lines of Book of Abraham apologetics know the devastating response that Schryver is preparing here:

I said that the text of the book of Abraham does not self-reference the so-called "Book of Breathings". And that is the case. Where in the text of the Book of Abraham does it say ANYTHING about the "Book of Breathings"? You just don't have the same testosterone level as a faithful Priesthood Holder like me, and as a result your pathetic little trailer-trash brain just can't handle the big stuff.

Check it out:

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/abr/1

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/abr/2

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/abr/3

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/abr/4

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/abr/5

Can you find "Book of Breathings" anywhere there? Hey, you inbred moonshine-swilling redneck? Hey??? God you smell SO unwashed.

Of course the text published in Times and Seasons by Joseph Smith does contain a picture from the Book of Breathings:

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/abr/fac_1



and here is the original from the "Book of Breathings":



And the Times and Seasons facsimile is labelled 'A facsimile from the Book of Abraham', and its captions state in detail that it portrays the sacrifice of Abraham by "The idolatrous priest of Elkenah", just as described in Abraham 1:

7 Therefore they turned their hearts to the sacrifice of the aheathen in offering up their children unto these dumb idols, and hearkened not unto my voice, but endeavored to take away my blife by the hand of the priest of Elkenah. The priest of Elkenah was also the priest of Pharaoh.
8 Now, at this time it was the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to offer up upon the altar which was built in the land of Chaldea, for the offering unto these strange gods, men, women, and children.
9 And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh, and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun.
10 Even the thank-offering of a child did the apriest of Pharaoh offer upon the altar which stood by the hill called Potiphar’s Hill, at the head of the plain of Olishem.
11 Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who were the daughters of Onitah, one of the royal descent directly from the loins of aHam. These virgins were offered up because of their virtue; they would not bbow down to worship gods of wood or of stone, therefore they were killed upon this altar, and it was done after the manner of the Egyptians.
12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

But although this may be hard for you to understand, my micro-testicled little untermensch, because you only read comic books, A PICTURE IS NOT THE SAME AS TEXT.

So when I said "it can no longer be suggested that the text of the Book of Abraham self-references to the so-called “Book of Breathings.” I was right, right right.

[_dartagnan]

Just to give you an idea how convoluted and desperate the apologetic position really is, read what Will posted in July 2006 as his "explanation" to account for all the critical evidence. No, this isn't a parody. Will really did say this (presumably with a straight face):

[Emphasis mine]

1. The text for the Book of Abraham was derived directly via revelation to Joseph Smith, without him knowing what portion, if any, of the scrolls actually contained the Egyptian text that corresponded to it. With this translation in hand, and believing that it derived from one scroll or the other, Joseph Smith and his associates made the incorrect assumption that the Book of Breathings text (which followed Facsimile #1) was the origin of the Book of Abraham, and therefore commenced a project to learn Egyptian by attempting to match the English text of the revelation to the Egyptian text on the scroll.

This argument is supported by the fact that, in none of his “translations”, was Joseph Smith reliant upon a pre-existing text. To the contrary, the production of his “translated” texts occurred independent of, and even absent a source document.

This argument cannot survive alone, however, since it still must explain why the illustrative vignettes to which the Book of Abraham refers are found on either end of the Book of Breathings. This argument must be combined with one of the following in order to answer that question.

2. The text of the Book of Abraham did appear on the scroll of Hor, but followed Facsimile #3 and the final extant Egyptian text which reads “The Beginning of the Book of … .” If this were the case, then obviously the internal reference to an illustration appearing “at the commencement of this record” could plausibly be said to apply to the lion couch vignette preceding the Book of Breathings. The only drawback to this explanation is that it doesn’t explain the significance of the Book of Breathings appearing between Facsimiles #1 and #3.

3. The text of the Book of Abraham did appear on one scroll or the other, but was mistakenly separated from its accompanying illustrations by a scribe who was simply producing a copy of several documents for the scrolls to be buried with the deceased Hor. Said scribe, for whatever reason, associated Facsimiles #1 and #3 with the Book of Breathings on the scroll of Hor, when they ought to have been associated with the Book of Abraham (and presumably the Book of the Dead) on the scroll of Semminis. The fact that the Book of Abraham references an illustration “at the beginning” becomes irrelevant in this scenario, for, while it may have been true that the original copy of the text was immediately preceded by the illustration, an uninformed, hasty, or careless scribe may have dissociated the text and the illustrations at a later date. A related consideration that might support this explanation is the fact (as Gee indicates in A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri) that vignettes similar to Facsimiles #1 and #3 are nowhere else associated with a Book of Breathings (as found in other Egyptian funerary documents), but are exclusively associated with the Book of the Dead, which we know appeared on the scroll of Semminis. Also, as noted by Nibley, there is reason to associate the general motifs of the Book of Abraham story with the motifs presented in the Book of the Dead.

This scenario, coupled with the condition described in scenario #1, would explain why Joseph Smith and/or his associates mistakenly believed that the Book of Breathings text was the origin of the Book of Abraham, and thus they attempted to learn Egyptian by employing the English translation as a primer.

4. The text of the Book of Abraham was derived from the Book of Breathings, but was encrypted in some fashion with which neither ancient Egyptians nor modern Egyptologists are familiar, but which was peculiar to the Jewish scribe who authored the encrypted text...I have researched enough into this specific topic and ancient Egyptian in general to recognize that what a hieroglyphic text seems to say (on the surface) is not always the only thing it can be saying. The Egyptians were especially skilled in the art of burying one message under another, seemingly unrelated one.- Jun 24 2006

[_Trevor]

I have heard #4 often enough to be very curious about it. Where are the apologists getting this?

[_Chap]

I give up.

Scrhryver has moved into some strange mopologetic dimension that is beyond the reach of parody. Every word in his post is a gem. It rivals Swift's "Tale of a Tub" at its best. Or possibly the "scholarly" footnotes on de Selby in "The Third Policeman" by Flann O'Brien - see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Selby

for those who have not yet enjoyed this hilarious book.

(edited to add) And here is a sample:

http://www.hellshaw.com/flann/deselby.html