Book of Abraham and the Latest Apologetics

[_karl61]

where is Royal Skousen now?

[_Kevin Graham]

Speaking of which, I don't recall that you ever rebutted Royal Skousen's confirmation of my analysis of the large dittograph on page #4 of KEPA #2. Is that in your plans? Or are you just going to remain all dressed up with nowhere to go?

For someone who claims to be knowledgeable and up to date on the "discussion," Will sure does seem terribly ignorant. First of all, a dittograph is something written twice. Nobody has doubted the fact that a portion was written twice. It is hardly something easily missed. We know a dittograph exists. Thus, Will's observation is not something that escaped everyone else. It was just that he was the first to try twisting it into an apologetic argument by insisting the dittograph was accidental. The key question is why it exists. On this point there is no way to verify one way or the other, so the critical reader is left weighing the evidences for and against a simultaneous dictation scenario. And there are many evidences for it that have not been explained any other way.

Will is disingenuous for insisting his apologetic argument, it all its glory, has been "verified" or "confirmed" by experts. This is common sense. Skousen has no means to determine whether it was accidental or not. I suspect all he has done is look at it and say, "Yep, that's a double copy, which is a dittograph." Of course it is possible that he accepts Will's full blown apologetic argument, but it remains that there is nothing he can do to "verify" it, short of leaping back in time to witness the event to see exactly what was going on.

Ultimately, the simultaneous dictation argument can easily account for this textual anomaly, however the copyist theory cannot account for the numerous evidences against it. Eventually these guys will have to tackle that juggernaut of a problem. I have asked Hauglid and Will on numerous occasions how it can be rationally argued that any of these evidences fit within a copyist theory. Neither have supplied a response beyond "It just can."

Skousen hasn't "confirmed" what will claims. Schryver is simply being disingenuous again.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Speaking of which, I don't recall that you ever rebutted Royal Skousen's confirmation of my analysis of the large dittograph on page #4 of KEPA #2. Is that in your plans? Or are you just going to remain all dressed up with nowhere to go?

There's nothing to rebut. I emailed Royal Skousen twice asking for his text-critical justification—he never replied.

Despite chirographic flaws, Frederick G. Williams was a seasoned scribe. The notion that Williams' eye accidentally skipped back some 100 or so words and that he never realized it, resulting in the full duplication of the 100 or so words, strikes me as utterly absurd. Compelling text-critical data could persuade me otherwise. I have yet to see any.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_Kevin Graham]

I emailed Royal Skousen twice asking for his text-critical justification—he never replied.

LOL!

Some "discussion" eh, will?

This reminds me of our previously failed attempts to find out what exactly John Gee's rebuttals were to Robert Ritner and in which publications. We were constantly reminded that Gee refuted Ritner, but whenever these refutations were asked about you guys refused to produce. Gee, why the secrecy?

I have no doubt that if any of these responses counted as real refutations, Will would be desperately trying to get it online for the world to see. But after three years of requests, all we are getting is more suspense about what Will says he knows behind closed doors. Like we haven't seen how this plays out before.

How many times can a grown man cry wolf and expect people to take him seriously?

[_William Schryver]

Hi Will,

Speaking of which, I don't recall that you ever rebutted Royal Skousen's confirmation of my analysis of the large dittograph on page #4 of KEPA #2. Is that in your plans? Or are you just going to remain all dressed up with nowhere to go?

There's nothing to rebut. I emailed Royal Skousen twice asking for his text-critical justification—he never replied.

Despite chirographic flaws, Frederick G. Williams was a seasoned scribe. The notion that Williams' eye accidentally skipped back some 100 or so words and that he never realized it, resulting in the full duplication of the 100 or so words, strikes me as utterly absurd. Compelling text-critical data could persuade me otherwise. I have yet to see any.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

You mean like the obvious homoteleuton that demarks the dittograph?

Sometimes I think you bank on the fact that hardly anyone else is versed in this stuff, and so you figure you can blow your schtick by with nary an objection.

And why not believe that? You've been doing the same thing for ... well, basically your entire adult life. Whether it's trumpeting a non-existent McClellin collection, or manufacturing a reputation as a textual critic out of thin air, or hyping a "final-word" dismantling of the Book of Abraham for 25 years.

And yet it continues to play well in places like this. Go figure.

I guess these people like snake oil.

Your only problem is going to be moving this show into any venue with a knowledgeable and skeptical audience -- like academic circles, for instance. I mean, you can dismiss my citation of the text critical evidence here, and everyone will applaud on cue and pat you on the back on the way out. You can even suggest that Skousen is such a bumbler that he never really even examined the question before issuing his confirmation of the analysis. These people know next to nothing about textual criticism, little or nothing about Royal, and the rigor he brings to anything he does, and therefore they'll permit you to dismiss him without question.

But in the real world of scholarship, your gig would get ripped to pieces, and I think your years of "production-paralysis" is a reflection of the fear you have of precisely that outcome. That's why you've been content to remain in the safe confines of online fora all this time.

As they say, whatever floats your boat ...

[_Who Knows]

Sorry for not keeping up. But can someone point me to where Skousen has talked about this? Did he post it on MAD? Did he publish something on this? Or is Will still talking about his private conversations with him? Excuse me for being skeptical, but I'd like to hear it from the horses mouth...

[_harmony]

Skousen has the same basic problem that Hauglid and Gee do: they're TR holding BYU professors. In other words: believers. They are required by their employment to produce only faith-promoting apologetics. Otherwise they'd end up like the Sept 6.

C'mon, Will! Where's those nonLDS Egyptologists? Heck, where's those nonLDS experts in any field?

[_Dr. Shades]

Yes, my observations concerning the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12 and the dittograph on page 4 of the same document have been confirmed by multiple "experts" in textual criticism and forensic document analysis. . . And on at least these two significant points (which I have been arguing for almost three years now) my conclusions are going to be vindicated and the critics' arguments to the contrary will be proven false. And the bigger picture: the theory of KEPA #2 and #3 being simultaneous transcripts of an oral dictation will be shown to be entirely untenable.

Help me out here, Will, 'cause I don't understand: Let's say that you're 100% correct and there's an interlinear insertion at Abraham 1:12 and a dittograph on page 4.

How does that in any way vindicate Joseph Smith's translation of the papyrii?

When you answer, please omit the insults. Thanks in advance.

[_William Schryver]

Help me out here, Will, 'cause I don't understand: Let's say that you're 100% correct and there's an interlinear insertion at Abraham 1:12 and a dittograph on page 4.

How does that in any way vindicate Joseph Smith's translation of the papyrii?

I never suggested that these two findings, considered in isolation, would "vindicate Joseph Smith's translation of the papyrii."

However, they do go far to contradicting two popular critical arguments that date clear back to Ashment; arguments that have been accepted as "givens" for many years, and that have been significant components of the larger package of presumed critical supremacy in the world of Book of Abraham studies.

[_Runtu]

Will,

If I'm understanding the apologists correctly, the text of the Book of Abraham came from some portion of the scrolls that is no longer extant. Also, the KEP represent efforts by the scribes to translate from the Egyptian. Have I got that right?

Anyway, what I'm wondering is, if they were trying to translate the same material that Joseph did, why did they choose the parts of the scrolls that are still extant, that we know have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham? Why didn't they use the part of the scrolls that actually contained the Book of Abraham?

I'm genuinely trying to understand the apologetic position, but I'm not getting it.