Kevin Graham wrote:** note** Graphics might take a few minutes to load
In October of 2006, and in light of Hauglid's recent presentation, I responded to his failure to share with his audience the argument for dictation. I posted a challenge for Will who was at the time serving as his internet lapdog. The irony is that I argued along the same lines that Daniel McClellan argues now. Daniel maintains that one cannot insist on a dictated text theory without explaning the evidence that suggests a copied text. There is nothing wrong with his argument here and I agree that nothing conclusive has been presented to fully explain the dittograph found at the very end in Ms1a.
However, there is a hypocritical flip side to this coin. Mr. Schryver and "Text-Critic" specialist Brian Hauglid had no problems pursuing the copyist theory based strictly on the dittograph,
without explaining the evidence that strongly suggest the text was dictated. Now the big difference here is that I have put the dittograph on the backburner because it is just one piece of evidence in their favor. Also, it shows up at the tail end of the document, and it involves several anomalies that indicate something else was going on in the room at the time this portion was written. In my view, the possibilities as to why this occurs is just too many to entertain. Brent claims he has a better explanation that he will be publishing in his upcoming volume, and my experience with him tells me I won't be disappointed with what he presents.
Now by contrast, Will and Hauglid have neglected to address
numerous pieces of evidence that strongly suggest the text was mostly transcribed via dictation. What follows is the same list of evidences I presented to Hauglid and Schryver four years ago, and I challenge Will to address them whenever he wanders over here. He never does. He only wants us to explain away his dittograph, which is the
only piece of evidence he has provided to support the copyist theory.
Keep in mind that this is an incomplete list (before Brent and Chris say it ). But these should suffice to give people some idea what we're basing our argument on. So, without further ado:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dictation Evidence #1 - Abr 1:4 Book of Abraham– “I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”
Ms1a – “I sought for mine appointment
whereunto unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”
Ms1b – “I sought for mine appointment
whereunto unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”
Problem: "Whereunto" is crossed out and corrected
in transition by
both scribes. "Thine" is crossed out replaced with "mine" by
both scribes. It is possible that "mine" was a secondary correction, but "unto" was clearly made in transition.
Proposed Explanations:1. In our view, the text was dictated, the speaker corrected the scribes and they made the correction in transition.
2. In the Hauglid view, these men were copying some source document and either (a) decided to make a xerox copy of an error-ridden text or (b) they just happened to make the
same exact mistakes while copying a non error-ridden sourcve document.
3. In the Schryver view these were "secondary emendations" (Will believes all similar corrections are the result of secondary emendations) which means someone came along afterwards and scribbled in the correction. This also means that in order for Will's theory to work, then the scribes had to have had the foreknowledge that the word "whereunto" would be corrected as soon as they finished writing it down, so they wrote it down
anyway, and then proceeded to provide the corresponding corrections.
In which corner of the universe would either of these two scenarios be rational? But wait, there is plenty more of this.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dictation Evidence #2 - Abr 1:9 Book of Abraham shagreel
Ms1a - shag = reel, shag-reel
Ms1b- shagreel, shagreel
Problem: The two scribes do not transcribe this word the same way. According to Brent's analysis, "both Williams and Parrish correct inadvertent errors: Williams initially spelled the deity's name with a lowcase s and then corrected it to an uppercase S; Parrish intially spelled the name with two a's (i.e., "Shagral") he then erased the second "a" and overwrote it with to e's; note also that Parrish initally confused the homonyms
son and
sun."
Proposed Explanations:1. In our view, the scribes were transcribing a dictated text, weren't sure how the word should appear on paper, and used their best judgment according to the manner in which the speaker pronunciated it. (The person dictating probably paused slightly in the middle of pronouncing the word, thus Williams divied the word with = and - respectively. He also mistook sun for
son, as one might expect in a dictated text.)
2. In the Schryver/Hauglid view these two men were copying a source document, and Williams must have hallucinated for a brief moment, seeing "=" in the middle of the word.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dictation Evidence #3 - Abr 1:11Book of Abraham - “Onitah, one of the royal descent directly”
Ms1a - “Onitah, one of the xxxxxx royal descent directly”
Ms1b- “Onitah, one of the xxxxxx royal descent directly”
Problem: xxxxx is an illegible word that was crossed out by both scribes
Proposed Explanations:1. In our view, the speaker dictated the erroneous word first and then corrected himself after the scribes had already written it down.
2. In the Will/Hauglid view, the scribes were copying a source document and either (a) coincidentally copied the document incorrectly, exactly the same way or (b) they were told to make a xerox copy of an already error-ridden manuscript (meaning for some strange reason they decided they needed at least three copies of an error-ridden manuscript, from two different scribes)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dictation Evidence #4 - Abr 1:12Book of Abraham - “I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record”
Ms1a - “I will refer you to the representation
that is at the commencement of this record.”
Ms1b - "I will refer you to the representation,
that is lying before you at the commencement of this record"
Problem: "that is lying before you" was crossed out by William Parrish in Ms1b and replaced with the correct text. A partial mistake was made by F.G. Williams in Ms1a.
Proposed Explanations:1. In our view, the scribes were transcribing a dictated text when the speaker stopped to correct an erroneous translation. Parrish has to erase four words and Williams only two words, because Parrish was writing at a slightly faster pace.
2.. In the Schryver/Hauglid view, this entire phrase was a secondary addition to the text, and probably isn't original to Joseph Smith's translation at all. Which means the argument used to connect the Sensen text to the Book of Abraham can be dispensed with. Long live the missing roll!
*** Brent Metcalfe responded to this with what I believe was conclusive text-critical evidence that the emendation was in transition, and not secondary. Here is the link to the debate over that argument: (
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... e__st__180)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dictation Evidence #5 - Abr 1:13 Book of Abraham - bedstead
Ms1a – bedsted
Ms1b – bed stead
Problem: These words are spelled differently by each scribe.
Proposed Explanations:1. In our view, the scribes spelled the words according to their own understanding of the pronunciation, and not according to visual confirmation.
2. In the Schryver/Hauglid view, even though the scribes were supposedly copying the same source document, they copied the text down in two different ways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dictation Evidence #6 - Abr 1:17Book of Abraham – “And this because they have turned their hearts away from me”
Ms1a - “And this because
their hearts are turned they have turned their hearts away from me”
Ms1b - “And this because
their hearts are turn they have turned their hearts away from me”
Problem: These four words were scratched out and replaced with corrected text.
Proposed Explanations:1. In our view, the scribes were halted in the middle of dictation as the speaker provided the corrected translation. Parrish did not complete the word "turned" when the speaker stopped them in mid-sentence. By cutting the word short by two letters (ed), this suggests this wasn't a copied text. People don't generally correct a miscopied text until the entire word is complete and the error becomes apparent.
2. In the Schryver/Hauglid view, Williams and Parrish
again make the
same mistake
coincidentally as they are copying from a source document. And again their errors are not identical. They also shared another hallucination, as they mistook "their hearts are turned" for "they have turned their hearts away."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dictation Evidence #7 - Abr 1:26BoA- “and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him”
Ms1b – “and also of Noah, his father, xx xx xxx xxxx who blessed him”
Ms1b – “and also of Noah, his father, xx xx xxx xxxx who blessed him”
Problem: Both scribes wrote four illegible words before crossing them out and replacing them with the corrected text.
Proposed Explanations:1. In our view, the text was dictated and the scribes were corrected in mid-sentence and the corrected text was placed in transition.
2. In the Schryver/Hauglid view, these scribes were copying from the same source document and either (a) coincidentally copied the text incorrectly, the exact same way or (b) were providing a xerox copy of an error-ridden document.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dictation Evidence #8 - Abr 1:26Book of Abraham kinsfolk, Ms1a – kinsfolk,
Ms1b – kin folks
Problem: These words are spelled differently by each scribe.
Proposed Explanations:1. In our view, the scribes spelled the words according to their own understanding of the pronunciation, and not according to visual confirmation.
2. In the Schryver/Hauglid view, even though the scribes were supposedly copying the same source document, they copied the text down in two different ways.
---------------------------------------------------------
I hope this sheds further understanding on why the "critics" argue Ms1a and Ms1b were simultaneously dictated. Our position is that Ms2 was a cleaner copy of Ms1b and Ms3 represents the 1842 printers manuscript.