This is circular. You can't assert that my evidence for conclusion X is invalid because I first have to prove conclusion X.
That isn't what I said. I'm saying that homoioteleuton with intention cannot be homoioteleuton. Only if it were unintentionaal, can it be considered a scribal error. You know this. But you don't seem to understand that you have not established that this was so, so there is no compelling reason to accept it. Now if it weren't for the plethora of evidence that argues for dictation, then I would probably go along with your suggestion. But as it is, the weight of the evidence in favor of dictation far outweighs the single piece of evidence with the dittograph. And what boggles my mind is that you admit you haven't dealt or even looked into these counterevidences, but you're still willing to declare with certainty that Ms1a is a copy of some mysterious Q document. Unless I misunderstood you and you accept the possibility that the first half of Ms1a could be dictated while the rest copied?
Critics accept the fact that most of the KEP Manuscripts represent copies, but they also represent dictation manuscripts.In case you haven't understood the theory from our side, Ms1a and Ms1b were simultaneously dictated, with the exception of the dittograph. Ms2 is a cleaned up hybrid copy of these two documents, and then Ms3 is even a cleaner copy, representing the printer's manuscript.
Now if
any portion of the KEP are dictated, then the argument by the critics is essentially established since the main point from all of this is that Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian to English. Who else would be dictating text? These men were hired to write down what Joseph Smith spoke. The whole point behind arguing the KEP were all just a bunch of copies, was to add plausibility to an implausible theory that they represent some botched effort by renegade scribes, and have nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Smith. That's the whole purpose behind these arguments; to distance Joseph Smith from the mistranslations. If you doubt this, then review the history, and you'll see these arguments were born out of necessity, all within the context of criticism towards Joseph Smith's translation ability.
But as it has been pointed out several times already, the critics could go ahead and concede everything you and Will are arguing, and the elephant is still in the room. So it boggles minds here when apologists from MAD start goading us into squabbles over something that is ultimately irrelevant to the big picture. You'd still have to explaain why the scribes felt they could Trump the authority of their prophet by trying to translate over him. You'd also have to explain why in the world they were translating texts from the
wrong scroll! Remember, the most popular apologetic remains the missing scroll theory.
Will and Gee both have argued for a ridiculous length for the original papyri, but no one has addressed the fact that of the dozen or so historical references to the papyri, all of them clearly describe the extant papyri.
But wanting two copies of the text on the same sheet of paper is kinda silly. I don't see how that serves as any kind of explanation.
Well, sure. A lot of what I see in this project is pretty silly. But nothing is quite as silly as the notion that Smith's most experienced scribe unknowingly copied half a page at the end of a document that is clearly a dictated text.
Which I will get to. At this point my argument is that portions were dictated and portions were transcribed.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Which portions do you think were dictated?
The fact that there is homoioteleuton only adds support to the conclusion that at least portions were transcribed.
You're saying this is evidence that some portions were transcribed via dictation? Could you expound on this a bit more?
The textual evidence takes priority over arriving at conclusions about why it happened.
But the entire argument about homoioteleuton rests on an assumption of
why it happened.
Additionally, what happened to the rest of chapter 2? Where's the next page? The page we have ends with about a third of v. 6. It clearly went on to another page.
I doubt there was. This is supported by the fact that it wasn't in the collection. My explanation for the dittograph is just one of many possible scenarios.
Happens all the time in ancient texts. Early 19th century scribes were no less prone to error (although their craft was far, far less common).
But we're not dealing with an ancient text. You're trying to apply text critical methods used in biblical scholarship, a field that already assumes the manuscripts under investigation are copies. And this explains your tendency to classify textual anomalies as copying errors. Seriously now, which course on textual criticism dealt with distinguishing between copied and dictated texts? Were you a classics major? Did you study Homeric texts? What else is known to have been dictated?
Additionally, there's no indication that I've seen that he did realize what he was doing
Really? The disruption of the flow by failure to assigned the Egyptian character, the disregard for the margin, the uncharacteristic squeezing of the last sentences into the page... none of that triggered any red flags at all? Clearly "something" happened at the point the dittograph began, to account for all these things. Saying it was just a scribal error doesn't explain them.
And if he left the text for any extended period of time then it's no surprise at all.
True, he could have left for a while. But why would he participate in a dictation session, take a break, and then return only to forget he was transcribing a dictation, and start copying text? Your theory requires too much, not least of which is a a source document for which there is no evidence.
No, it does not explain why the scribe would want to recopy the text on that page.
Because it wasn't the printer's manuscript, therefore a clean production in its first stage wasn't a priority. And Williams was already the sloppiest of the three scribes.
Wanting two separate copies of a text is one thing. Wanting two copies of a text on the same piece of paper is bizarre.
Like I said, there is no shortage of bizzare anomalies in these documents. For instance, why do a couple pages begin with the first lines scribbled out? If they're making this many mistakes in the first sentence, why not just start out with a fresh sheet of paper?
You've not explained why homoioteleuton is the less likely occurrence. You've only asserted it based on rather myopic scenarios.
No, I said it is less likely based on the weight of the evidence favoring dictation. You already admitted that you're not dealing with any of that at this point, which seems kinda silly to be leaping to conclusions as you have done. I only provided other possible scenarios because I was asked to provide some.
I've also not seen close to a dozen other pieces of evidence that the entire collection of translation manuscripts was dictated.
You've seen them, though you probably didn't recognzie them as such. I plan to compile a list of evidences for you soon.
In fact, I've yet to see one piece of evidence that precludes transcription in parts of the manuscripts.
Nobody said transcription was precluded. In fact, we're arguing that it was transcribed via dictation. Are you under the impression that transcription refers only to copies of documents?
You seem to have missed where I stated that there is evidence in some places for dictation and in others for transcription.
This is ambiguous, since the two are not mutually exclusive.
If a "copy theorist" is one that needs to explain away evidence for dictation then I'm not a copy theorist. Given that fact, who are you addressing?
OK, so are you a hybrid-theorist? Do you believe the document is both transcribed via dictation
and copied from a source document?
But my concern is for Abr 1:1-3. I can see that the phrases that were putatively translated begin and end in discreet textual units that correspond with the characters in the margin. The fact that those characters after Abr 1:3 have nothing whatsoever to do with anything in the EAG aside, why is Abr 1:1-3 so distinct?
Because it was completely absent in the two earliest manuscripts. How do you explain this? Ms1a and Ms1b both begin at Abr 1:4. Why do you think this is the case? This is a wild, and demands explanation. The critical model accounts for this data and explains it, whereas teh apologetic side has been able to come up with nothing. If you can offer an explanation, you'd be the first. Doesn't it make sense that the scribes would have included Abr 1:1-3 in their manuscript, had it been translated at that point? And then in Ms2 we find Abr 1:1-3 written in a darker ink, indicating that it was produced separately from the rest. And of course, it is followed by a cleaner version of Abr 1:4-2:18.
That statement was in regards to Abr 1:1-3.
Nevertheless, the point still stands. The Egyptian character was written with no corresponding translation. This pretty much proves the characters came before the translated English.
I'm not interested in that theory
Glad to hear it. But you have to understand, we were hearing arguments for years that this theory is superior to anything we could possibly come up with, simply because Gee "had been trained in textuaal criticism." At Yale, no less.
Yes. I'm discussing why portions appear to have been transcribed while other portions appear to have been dictated.
We've got to come to an agreement on the usage "transcribe". :) It would really cut out a lot of the confusion I think.
Abr 1:1-3 and the homoioteleuton at Abr 2:2 are clear instances where the evidence does not support dictation.
Which was always accepted within the critical model.
No, we don't know that. We know it wasn't published until seven years later, but you beg the question to insist we know it wasn't published until then...Can you provide a quote for this announcement that he would begin translating Abr 2:19 and beyond?
In his diary he wrote that he “Commenced Translating from the Book of Abraham
for 10 No of the Times and Seasons and was engaged at his office day & evening." (Dean C. Jessee,
The Papers of Joseph Smith: Journal, 1832-1842, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret, 1992), 367). The issue he referenced contained his translation of 2:19 and above. So this means Abr 2:19 and above, wasn't translated before March of 1842. I guess it is technically "possible" that 2:19 through chapter three had been previously translated, and that Joseph Smith decided to just sit on it for seven years, but the KEP's ending precisely at 2:18 would be too much to be just coincidence.
I'm working with my own theory, and at this point my analysis has revolved around the first three verses, and, up to this point, the data I've gathered is pretty conclusive. I'm beginning to dabble in the translation manuscripts, and I see the data pointing between the two extremes espoused by the two camps, but there's still a lot left to do.
Fair enough.
But that character is entirely unrelated to anything in the EAG, is it not?
So what do you call this:
It seems to me that, based on the available evidence, the characters were arbitrarily assigned sections of text
I don't think you've looked closely enough. The picture above is screaming at your argument.
But he goes over that sheet on the two occasions I've seen so far, and in one he continues to write to the edge of the paper on the beginning of the next sheet
Yes, which, as I already pointed out, is further evidence of dictation. Because had yet to draw in the margin on the next page, so while he was transcribing the translation on the previous page, Joseph Smith kepts dictating to him as he came to the end of the page, so his transcription of the dictation overflowed onto the page with no margin. But once Joseph Smith finished with the translation of that particular character, he then drew in the margin to make room for subsequent characters. I mean what other explanation is there? Why draw in a margin on a sheet you've already written on, unless you're trying to make room for something?
Unless he didn't realize it was a mistake. In my estimation, that makes much more sense than assuming Smith wanted two copies of this section of text on the same sheet of paper.
You keep focusing on my proposed explanation instead of the main reason why the theory doesn't hold up: because there is too much evidence favoring dictation.
So do we have any examples of the writing that goes the edge ending immediately before an Egyptian character pops up in the margin?
"These were professionals" wouldn't fly in any corner of the academy, and that's not up for debate. You can make assertions all you want about this specific historical context, but this is my profession and that is not a legitimate text-critical standard. It's an ad hoc guess.
Again, you're focusing on the proposed explanation as if it is what my entire argument rests upon. Hell, when it comes to explaining the "why" of something, all sides are just guessing. I never said it was definitive, only that it was more likely than your nonexplanation. And the fact is, some guesses are more plausible than others. My argument rests on the text-critical evidence in favor of dictation; evidence you have yet to address. But yes, historical evidence is just as valid as text-critical evidence, and depending on what the question is, it could be even more valid (such as determining
when certain portions of the text were produced) so whether you like it or not, it must be dealt with just the same.
And that's been provided. All that has to have happened is any extended period away from the text.
If that were true, then you wouldn't have to reach back to the "ancients" to find a comparable example. We're not dealing with a biblical manuscript that had been copied multiple times over the course of a thousand years. This is what your profession deals with. But what we're dealing with here is a 19th century collection of documents that represent both dictated and copied manuscripts. I would be surprised if most courses on textual criticism offer even a semester dedicated to analyzing dictated texts. This is simply not within the typical purview of biblical scholarship.
The textual evidence for homoioteleuton is quite clear.
And I've already explained why this is circular reasoning: "It is a copied manuscript because of the homoioteleuton - it is a homoioteleuton because it is a copied manuscript."
It can only be as such if the text was unintentionally copied.
It is absolutely without question the first possibility that would be explored in this case, and in this case there's no reason to doubt it.
There is plenty reason, and I have explained them, and you hjave yet to address them, because you said you only want to deal with Abr 1:1-3 for now.
Absolutely all the signs point to it
Except for the fact that the manuscript as a whole represent a dictated text. This throws suspicion over any argument that the copied portion at the tail end, was by accident.
Haran is at the end of a line. Haran is also listed previously in the text at the end of another line
Which is also where the other scribe left off. If the other scribe had left off at any other place, your argument would hold more water.
Homoioteleuton means "similar ending." It's when a scribe skips backward or forward in a text because he accidentally begins from the wrong section because the end of the line or word looks the same.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Yet you must establish that it was accidental. In manuscripts that are copied without question, these kinds of conclusions would be natural. But when dealing with dictated manuscripts, the rules change, and so the text-critical methods applied to copied texts are irrelevant.
The text is taken back up following the first line-terminating occurrence of Haran. This is an absolutely textbook case of homoioteleuton.
For which you're unable to produce a single example, within the past millenia.
We'll see if my conclusions changes after I've had a chance to look over all the manuscripts. I can't imagine how a fuller context could possibly weaken the signs that this is homoioteleuton.
Your conclusion could change? You've already declared it a scientific fact.
I don't see any evidence that undermines the notion that this section of text was transcribed
You're still getting it wrong man. Nobody is arguing that this section of the text wasn't copied (your "transcribed). Only that it wasn't copied by accident.
and no amount of evidence from the rest of the manuscript can legitimately be brought to bear on this section without internal evidence of its own. It's specious reasoning to conclude that evidence for dictation in one section constitutes evidence for dictation in all sections.
Again, I already concede that this portion was copied. Where we disagree is on the "why" it was copied. Answering this question definitively is beyond the realm of your expertise in text-criticism.
Your explanation only brings up the need for another explanation: what good are two copies of the same text on the same sheet of paper?
Both sides raise more questions with our explanations, but I am confident the "copyist" theory raises far more questions and requires more assumptions in order to work. As our resident historian recently said, the best historian focuses on what historical figures did and say, and don't worry about why, or whether it makes sense to us. Or something to that effect...( ring any bells Trev?)
Another thing to consider is that the repeated text does not carry an Egyptian character in the margins
Are you reading my posts at all? I already mentioned this.
Not only does that undermine the notion that Smith wanted the entire text copied down twice to take the place of the other scribe's work, but it indicates the text Williams was copying from did not have Egyptian characters on it. Your explanation does not hold.
That is a non sequitur. It is just as likely that the reason an Egyptian character was not inserted, was because the text fell under the same Egyptian character that was already above it. And the document that he was copying was the same page he was writing on.
I've explained exactly that, and you're still ignoring the fact that dictation in one or even many places does not mean dictation in all places.
No, you're still misunderstanding the argument. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat this but, "The dittograph at the end of Ms1a was not dictated."
You're trying to say it's all or nothing, and that's just not how this kind of process works.
So what you're saying is that it is conceivable that the first half of the manuscript was given via dictation, and the rest copied? What in the world kind of event would be going on in this situation? In any event, as I said at the outset, if any portion is shown to have been dictated, it vindicates the critical argument's most important point: Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents.
This is circular reasoning (again). You can't assert that my evidence for conclusion X is illegitimate because I have to first prove conclusion X.
That isn't my argument. It is a simple matter of inductive reasoning. You want to argue that X is likely, and I am arguing that it isn't likely based on its scarcity. You said it happens all the time, but then jump to the "ancients" to make the point. Well, in my view, if something like this happens only once every few centuries, then in what sense is it "probable" now?
Like I said previously, you let me know when you find a trained textual critic that doesn't think this is a textbook case of homoioteleuton
I must have missed that post, and it is extremely late on a work-night so I will go ahead and retire for the night. I'll just finish by clarifying my point about authority. My point was that this isn't as "obvious" as you like to believe, based upon the fact that plenty of people have studied these documents and that didn't jump out at them either. You want names? How about John Gee, Hugh Nibley, Edward Ashment (trained at the University of Chicago), Dean Jesse, Stephen Thompson (trained at Brown University along with Lanny Bell). And of course, Robert Ritner who is perhaps the world's most reputable Egyptologist. He is going to be contributing a chapter in Brent's upcoming volume on the KEP. Brent has more surprises for us too, but he isn't sharing yet. I found out about Ritner's contribution from Ritner himself. Anyway, I know there were others that the Church had analyze the documents when they were first discovered a while back, and I assume they chose men with some familiarity with text-critical methods. Would it shock you to know that they believed these represented the original dictation manuscripts? Only when it became clear that the Egyptian characters didn't translate to the Book of Abraham, did the apologetic movement hit overdrive, and the "obvious" conclusions about the meaning of these documents were abandoned.