... you should have no problem answering the questions I asked Royal and Brian:Brent Metcalfe to Royal Skousen and Brian Hauglid, 9 November 2007 wrote:
• What was the specific text-critical evidence in manuscripts 1a (fldr. 2), 1b (fldr. 3), and 2 (fldr. 1) that convinced you that the repetitive ending in ms. 1a is "definitely a question of visual dittography arising from copying from another manuscript ... [a 'mistake' that] can definitely occur when someone is coming back to copying after some delay," and that Will's "analysis seems perfectly correct"?
• Can you provide two or three decisive examples of scribal "errors" that in your judgment "readily occur in a second copying" which involve the duplication of over 100 words?
Schryver also says that Royal has an analysis of the dittograph that “will be published in the near future.” Where and when will this analysis be published?
In my own view, dittography is a scribal error; and given my analysis, I am highly skeptical that the redundant text on page 4 of ms. 1a (fldr. 2) can be properly classified as dittography.
Brian graciously replied, though he didn't address my questions specifically. Royal's Inbox is evidently a selective black hole.
I look forward to your documented answers.
Well, now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
My answers you will get – though not here, as I’ve already indicated. There is far too much annoying background noise in this venue to make any such discussion worth your while or mine. But I will, as promised, respond to your request for “answers” in a post extending the previous discussion of this issue in the School of the Pundits forum on the MAD board.
Then, I will look forward to your engagement of those arguments.
.
.
.
Don't you grow weary of such puerile taunts?
Not really.
Oh, sometimes -- just for variety -- I’ll go from puerile to provocative, and even venture all the way to polemical, only to quickly leap to solemnly serious when you least expect it.
Does it weary you?
Yes, when I was in my mid-twenties (I turn 51 in a few weeks) I occasionally chatted about Hofmann's "non-existent McClellin collection"; but unlike LDS apostle Dallin Oaks and now deceased general authority Hugh Pinnock, I never tried to sell it.
Well, I suppose enough water has gone under the bridge now that we can start to expect the revisionist history versions of those days to start appearing. I wonder what Bob Stott would say about your statement above? I think I might just ask him …
… I did invite Brian Hauglid to discuss text-critical intricacies with me on MormonApologetics.org (Brian declined); I also told Craig Foster that I'd be willing to explicate my BoAbr stemma codicum on a panel with Brian Hauglid, John Gee, and John Tvedtnes at the next FAIR conference.
So, you proposed a panel consisting of the above-mentioned three academics, all of whom are well into the process of having produced a vitae of considerable length in the areas of their special expertise, in addition to various Book of Abraham-related questions.
Somehow, I can’t help but wonder, when your proposal was taken under consideration, if the people envisioning the whole thing – you and the three professors on a stage – started humming to themselves:
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
One of these things …
Now, I’m as much in favor of affirmative action as the next guy, but when it comes to some things, the simple truth is that there is a perceived need for symmetry; for balance.
And, your own sense of stature notwithstanding, the facts would not presently justify your inclusion in a panel of the sort you have proposed. And, as distasteful to you as it must be to acknowledge, an outsider looking in on this scene would conclude that it is not you and the three professors who constitute a peer group, but (and I just know how painful this is to even consider) your only logical current peer when it comes to these questions is ...that’s right ... me: Mr. Obnoxious Johnny-Come-Lately with his high-resolution scans and vulgar sciolism in tow.
Of course, that shouldn’t be viewed as bad news for you. After all, as unsatisfying as it may prove to be in the actual doing, it will surely not be difficult at all for you to quickly establish the supremacy of your knowledge and arguments, thereby reducing me – once and for all – to nothing more than a quaint, but faint and fading memory in the rear-view mirror of Book of Abraham studies.
.
.
.
In any case, and all “puerile” posturing aside, I will – as soon as time and opportunity permits – directly respond to your topical request above concerning the long dittograph on page #4 of KEPA #2. Look for it sometime early next week …
