Zub Zool oan and Abraham 1:2b?????3

[_maklelan]

This is why you have an argument, Mak. And, you have admitted that you are not prepared to speak to a lot of the issues with the text that he has at least worked with before.

But we're not dealing with those issues.

And, finally, clearly you should be able to grasp the irony of accusing Kevin of being unprepared to entertain the notion that his assumptions are flawed because this is precisely what he showed the ability to do when he quit serving as Gee's mouthpiece in the Metcalfe debate. Obviously he was capable of doing that then, so your pronouncement that he is incapable of doing so now rings more than a little hollow.

That's quite a different story. Since adopting the opposing viewpoint, has he ever shown the ability to concede a point like this? He's even said himself that it's an insignificant point. You know as well as I that he is spitting into the wind regarding this dittograph.

Since you have admitted that you are "just getting into this," why on earth would he, or anyone for that matter, suddenly bow down to you on the basis of a couple of observations?

Because the evidence is unambiguous.

Because you went to Oxford? You're smarter than that, and believe it or not, so are we.

I don't believe I've mentioned Oxford once in this debate. If his argument is so strong and mine is built on hollow fallacies, why can't he or you engage the evidence?

Why be a prick, Mak?

I'm being curt to people who are being pricks to me. You don't get to accuse me of "ridiculous posturing," tell me you're "unimpressed," not respond to any evidence, and then call me a prick when I point out your camp is unwilling to see things objectively.

Do you know me?

Nope.

Do you know whether I am willing to reconsider my position based on new evidence and persuasive arguments or not?

If you look at the example of Ab2, page 4, and reject the notion that it is a dittograph, then you are unwilling to reconsider your dogmatism. It's black and white. There is absolutely no question.

All of this rhetoric about me having a dogma and refusing to consider that it might be flawed is a pile of horse manure. And, if you are willing to jump in here to pronounce on my intellectual integrity, knowing as little about that as you do, then what else might you be premature about, intellectually speaking, yourself?

Feel free to demonstrate whatever you want about the flawed nature of my argument. Limit it to what you can demonstrate rather than just assert, though, and you'll not have a word to say.

[_Kevin Graham]

Okay... so in the end, when the cows come home and the birds fly up to roost in the trees and the sun goes down... what matters is that the papyri and the Book of Abraham don't match. At all. Not even a little bit.

How dare you try "shifting the emphasis!"

I'm being facetious, of course. ;)

[_Doctor Scratch]

Obviously, Kevin has piled up a lot of evidence in favor of a dictation theory

Really? All I saw him do was refer obliquely to that evidence.

The graphics he posted provided rather striking and clear illustrations of his points, I thought. Certainly, that's nowhere near as "oblique" as your allusions to this mysterious source document.

It's not. You're not paying attention. I'm sure the evidence for dictation in other pages of the manuscripts is perfectly legitimate.

Well, then: doesn't that other, "perfectly legitimate" evidence show that Joseph Smith & Co. were trying to translate Egyptian?

On this page, there's none. There is no evidence to suggest that the entire corpus was exclusively dictated and not transcribed. Kevin is trying to nakedly assert that evidence of dictation in other places amounts to evidence that the entire corpus was exclusively dictated, but that's a blatant fallacy. He has to be able to account for the homoioteleuton in order for that to work, and as we've seen, he cannot.

But Mak: that's *not* what he's arguing (at least as far as I can tell). That's why he's saying that you're attacking a straw man. What Kevin seems to be arguing is that the evidence, overall, shows that the KEP are translation documents. So, if you've got one page that points to copying rather than dictation/translation, how does that *disprove* the argument about the overall mss. constituting a failed attempt at translation?

Know what I mean?

And you suggest that this is the case, despite the fact that in every other text ever written or dictated by Joseph Smith in his entire life, he never once did that? What about the fact that the differences in the paragraphs point, again, to transcription? The word "me" is inserted secondarily after "Abraham." Clearly the word was missed in the parent text and subsequently inserted on the wrong side of "Abraham." "The Lord said unto Abraham ^me^ get thee out" is utterly nonsensical. "The Lord said unto Abraham get thee out" doesn't make sense in light of the fact that the entire rest of the repeated paragraph is in the first person. No, your argument doesn't even come close to getting off the ground.

I don't know, Mak. Frankly, I think that the idea of some sort of revision taking place seems a lot more plausible than your missing document theory. This is especially so in light of the fact that this document is...well....missing.

You can even look at a more modern manuscript, like the opening passage from Don DeLillo's great novel, Underworld. He rewrote the passage over and over again on a typewriter, changing things a bit each time, so that you get different (sometimes different in very subtle ways) versions of the same paragraph on the same page.

It's difficult to scratch out letters and write superlinear and sublinear emendations on a typewriter. It's not quite so difficult to do it with pen and a paper, which is what Smith and company did every other time.

Sure. But for a larger revision, it would make sense to start the paragraph afresh. And if Smith was dictating what he thought was a translation, then the errors and subsequent revisions begin to make a lot more sense. E.g., your example re: the shift to 1st Person. I mean, seriously, Mak: how does your copying theory account for a shift like that? What, the scribes just somehow magically made the mistake of screwing up the entire point of view? That makes zero sense. But I've you've done translation work before, then you know that sometimes you realize that you've got problems with the case or POV or whatever and thus you revise once you spot the error. (E.g., you misread 3rd person for 1st person.)

[_maklelan]

A shift in emphasis by whom?

The critics. Once the sand begins to shift underneath their feet they start to claim they never liked standing there in the first place.

What do you mean "the" theory?

I didn't say "the theory," I said "the position," and I meant the position held by critics here and on MADB that the KEP was a damning piece of evidence.

Are you asserting that this was the theory of everyone who does not believe in the LDS Church's claims about the Book of Abraham, or the theory of a small group of people that have studied the KEP, the members of which I probably don't need more than two hands' worth of fingers to count?

I referenced exactly zero theories.

Shift in emphasis by whom? By everyone who does not believe that the Book of Abraham is a legitimate scripture, or by the handful of people who have studied this particular piece of esoteric Mormon trivia? Are you asserting that nobody said the KEP were irrelevant to their non-belief in the Book of Abraham prior to your and/or Schryver's argument?

Of course not.

[_maklelan]

First of all, mak, I don't have a "camp."

You're uncritically defending Kevin's assumptions. Give me reason to believe you're not in his camp.

You are trying to persuade your readers. I am one of them. I will question your arguments where I see potential problems. You raised that particular example and declared what you thought was "most likely." Sitting in my chair, I did not immediately agree that it was "most likely."

Tell me why. I'll refrain from responding to more of your posts until you tell me exactly what it is about my argument that does not convince you.

[_Kevin Graham]

Mak said with respect to the characters on the Translation manuscripts:

But that character is entirely unrelated to anything in the EAG, is it not?

I then replied with the following refutation:

Now this was early this morning, and Mak has done everything possible to avoid responding by sending us down a wormhole focusing on several straw men arguments and misrepresenting my position several times.

He also refuses to explain which portions of the manuscripts he believes to be transcribed via dictation (Freudian slip?). What is the point in trying to "debate" someone who thinks he is above reproach?

[_maklelan]

I remember when I was in grad school, when I thought I knew everything and was so much smarter than else, when no one else was capable of evaluating an argument, and when the latest thing I studied answered all the questions in the world, and when my experience was in taking tests and convincing professors, before I had to apply what I had studied to the real world.

Good times, good times.

Nice rhetoric, but it doesn't respond to the fact that evidence unambiguously supports my position and not Kevin's. I've explained why. Kevin has not been able to engage my concerns.

You're welcome to explain why you disagree if you think you're up to it.

[_maklelan]

Well said. At this point I would gladly pay good money to witness the day when reality comes up and kicks mak in the balls. I'm not saying it's going to happen with the KEP, but it will happen some day. It's happened to ALL of us. But, most of us don't make such a public spectacle of ourselves before it happens.

Funny how Kevin and I are relatively alone until he can't respond and the argument regresses to ad hominem. So many people come out of the woodwork to participate.

[_Trevor]

But we're not dealing with those issues.

What was the title of this thread?

That's quite a different story. Since adopting the opposing viewpoint, has he ever shown the ability to concede a point like this? He's even said himself that it's an insignificant point. You know as well as I that he is spitting into the wind regarding this dittograph.

Listen, I know Kevin Graham a lot better than you do. And I am telling you that you are absolutely and completely wrong. Kevin can be bullheaded in the midst of an argument, but he is completely capable of changing his viewpoint in response to arguments and evidence. And don't be surprised to find that those of us who know this will not sit by and allow you to misrepresent Kevin without speaking up. In this matter you are either totally ignorant or driven by your agenda.

Because the evidence is unambiguous.

Dude, you need to calm down.

I don't believe I've mentioned Oxford once in this debate. If his argument is so strong and mine is built on hollow fallacies, why can't he or you engage the evidence?

Because you are too busy taking swings to have a real thoughtful discussion. You seemed to be willing to do so at one time, but now you are off to the races.

I'm being curt to people who are being pricks to me. You don't get to accuse me of "ridiculous posturing," tell me you're "unimpressed," not respond to any evidence, and then call me a prick when I point out your camp is unwilling to see things objectively.

Take a flying leap, mak. I speak from actual experience. And from where I am sitting, you appear to be posturing. I don't regard what you are doing polite academic discourse (hell, it is not even good scholarship), and I am happy to tell you so. Of course I can tell you I am unimpressed. I am. And as long as you continue to misrepresent me I will be happy to tell folks that you have gone from acting like a polite and respectable scholar to behaving like a disingenuous, two-bit apologist. Welcome to the Camp Pahoran. Do you want to leave and reclaim some respect?

If you look at the example of Ab2, page 4, and reject the notion that it is a dittograph, then you are unwilling to reconsider your dogmatism. It's black and white. There is absolutely no question.

No, I am not unwilling to reconsider my dogmatism--I don't have any dogmatism about this. I have caution. I have a desire to consider context. I am not eager to rush to agree with people who have proven incorrect before and are sometimes rather driven to certain conclusions by a clear and powerful agenda. Reconsidering doesn't mean that I immediately agree with you and all of the conclusions you draw from your observations. It's that simple, and there is absolutely no question about it.

Feel free to demonstrate whatever you want about the flawed nature of my argument. Limit it to what you can demonstrate rather than just assert, though, and you'll not have a word to say.

If we ever have a conversation about it, I will. I already pointed out one problem I had. You said it was a "wash." If we want to be careful, we will proceed point by point. As a scholar, that is what I tend to do. Excuse me for not rushing to agree with you about how obviously right you are.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Well said. At this point I would gladly pay good money to witness the day when reality comes up and kicks mak in the balls. I'm not saying it's going to happen with the KEP, but it will happen some day. It's happened to ALL of us. But, most of us don't make such a public spectacle of ourselves before it happens.

Funny how Kevin and I are relatively alone until he can't respond and the argument regresses to ad hominem. So many people come out of the woodwork to participate.

No, mak, try again. I had been watching this thread since its inception. And since its inception you came across to me as a snot-nosed grad student who thought way too highly of himself. I thought several times about pointing out that you were coming across as a complete ass wipe.

But, Kevin was playing along so I just assumed that I was missing something. Maybe I was just not being charitable enough. Maybe the discussion was really good and I just wasn't understanding something. I didn't want to derail the thread by pointing all of this out. But then Kevin pointed this out, the thread was quickly derailing, and so at that point I felt it o.k. to let you know what I really thought.