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

[_Nomad]

Let's see if I've got this straight. Joseph Smith is thinking about the lost 116 pages. Doesn't want that to happen again! So he has Williams make a copy of one paragraph, and one paragraph only. But he has him do it on the same page! That way, if this page gets lost ...

Wait a second. Something's wrong with this theory. What can it possibly be?

Can you folks really be this dumb?

Nomad, uh, I want to put this as nicely as possible . . . your reading comprehension really sucks.

Reading comprehension? Oh, I comprehend completely that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That is quite clear.

A little clarification is in order, however. “Homoioteleuton” is actually not the accurate term for what we see on this manuscript. The correct term is “dittography.” “Homoioteleuton” (Greek for “same ending”) is the causal factor in dittography. Homoioteleuton does not always mean dittography. It is merely how dittography is caused, when a scribe making a copy (“abschrift”) of something (the “exemplar”) accidentally picks up the wrong instance of a common ending. (In this case, the word “Haran” which appears in the second instance all alone on a line.) Thus, the scribe inadvertantly made a second copy of a passage—the part between the “homoioteleution”.

This is really a text book case of the phenomenon, as Royal Skousen observed:

I think this is very definitely a question of visual dittography arising from copying from another manuscript. Your analysis seems perfectly correct, with the scribe coming back later and thus making the mistake. This kind of long dittography can definitely occur when someone is coming back to copying after some delay.

Royal Skousen, personal e-mail to William Schryver, 10/21/2006 2:12 PM

Cited [url= http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208056920
]here[/url].

To my knowledge, Skousen has never been called an “apologist.” He has never published anything of an “apologetic” nature. He is considered one of the foremost textual critics alive. His reputation and credentials are unimpeachable. And yet the jokers here think they know more than him; more than maklelan (who is also a trained text critic); more than the other text critics (like Bryan Hauglid) who have also confirmed the finding.

As I said before, this kind of craziness can only happen here in the MDB Wonderland.

[_Nomad]

I already explained the bottom line. In order for Kevin's claim to even break even with the evidence in favor of homoioteleuton, Kevin needs to show that Smith had a reason to want the text copied on the same sheet of paper. Kevin cannot show that, nor can anyone else. No such reason exists.

And as I already explained, in order for Mak's claim to even break even with the evidence in favor of dictation, Mak needs to show that Smith had a reason to want a hybrid production of a dictated and copied text. Mak cannot show that, nor can anyone else. No such reason exists.

Bottom line, I operate from the assumption that the manuscript was intended as a dictated text, and this makes his argument for homoioteleuton highly unlikely. I based this on a number of evidences that have never been addressed, and Mak is not interested in addressing them until some unknown future point in time. In the meantime, we must all bow down and indulge our resident Grad student by agreeing with every assertion he makes, or else we're all unprofessional, disrespectful, subjective, etc.

Wow. The BYU professors were never this arrogant.

As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith had anything to do with the production of these manuscripts. His part of the project (the translation) had already occurred several months before these manuscripts were produced, as the EAG so clearly demonstrates.

It looks as though they were merely copies that Williams and Parrish were making for themselves. As Schryver explained in his presentation, the first line of these manuscripts identifies them as "cipher keys" just like the EAG. Williams and Parrish are making copies of the key for themselves. Everyone who wants to be able to understand the enciphered text would need a key.

[_Nomad]

I will only read one more post of yours. If it does not satisfy the criterion I've outlined above, I have no further use of you.

Believe me, I've been observing this Graham guy for a long time now. He never could have been any use to you. He is the single biggest bag of hot air on this message board. And that's saying something!

He's been saying the same stuff for years. He is a classic case of arrested development when it comes to this stuff. The understanding of the KEP has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last couple years, but he hasn't kept up. So he just keeps repeating the same things he's always said, trusting that no one here in Wonderland knows any better.

[_maklelan]

Chris or Brent: Can you provide an explanation for why it would be at all reasonable to conclude Smith desired the same text be copied out twice on the same sheet of paper? This is the scenario that Kevin insists makes more sense than homoioteleuton. I contend it makes no sense whatsoever. Unless it can be shown to be a probable scenario, I fail to see how the occurrence of homoioteleuton could possibly be rejected.

[_Nomad]

Chris or Brent: Can you provide an explanation for why it would be at all reasonable to conclude Smith desired the same text be copied out twice on the same sheet of paper? This is the scenario that Kevin insists makes more sense than homoioteleuton. I contend it makes no sense whatsoever. Unless it can be shown to be a probable scenario, I fail to see how the occurrence of homoioteleuton could possibly be rejected.

They have tried to use the "intentionally copied because of the fear of a recurrence of the lost 116 pages" argument in the past. Or at least they hint at that reason. As with everything when it comes to Metcalfe, he never really says much of anything except like what he said to Graham back when Schryver first presented the evidence for dittography:

So, Will thinks that the replication of 100+ words in BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), page 4 is a dittograph?! What unbridled nonsense.

A dittograph occurs when the eye of a scribe skips from a letter, letter grouping, word, or word grouping to another that is similar -- if not identical -- in appearance. Scholars consider this an _accidental_ scribal error that is facilitated by the _close proximity_ of the similarities.

Yet Will would have us believe that Williams' eye skipped approximately a half page back from where he was allegedly copying! Will's hypothesis also assumes that Williams was so oblivious to his mistaken replication that he rewrote the paragraph _in its entirety_; and although Brian postulates that Williams later corrected his manuscript in darker ink, somehow Williams misses -- yet again -- the duplicated text and lets it stand in lieu of striking it out.

I chose my words carefully when I told Brian in our "Pundits" exchange:

<<To simplify without oversimplifying, I'm persuaded that rigorous scrutiny of the BoAbr manuscripts (resencio) yields a lucid, high-level stemma: 1) the bulk of ms. 1a (fldr. 2) and all of ms. 1b (fldr. 3) are simultaneous transcriptions from oral dictation ...>>

Again, <<the _bulk_ of ms. 1a ... and _all_ of ms. 1b ... are simultaneous transcriptions from oral dictation>> -- this, in my judgment, best accounts for the textual evidence.

When I spoke with Brian at FAIR 2006 he was clear that he didn't know what to make of Williams' replication. I do, and I plan on discussing the redundant text in a forth coming publication. In the interim, rest assured that Williams' redundancy would not be considered a dittograph by anyone who understands even the rudiments of textual criticism.

At best, Will has hit a foul ball.

Brent Metcalfe to Kevin Graham, 10/18/2006, as cited here.

And since Metcalfe the Myth spoke, all the thinking was done from that point forward.


Yep, that's the way things work here in Wonderland!
lol!

[_Aristotle Smith]

Mak,

I await your grand unified theory of the KEP. Seriously, when you have it ready let us know. You said you have connections to Plano, Texas. If you are ever out here again I'll buy you lunch.

[_Nomad]

By the way, mak, pay close attention to Metcalfe's customized definition of dittography:

A dittograph occurs when the eye of a scribe skips from a letter, letter grouping, word, or word grouping to another that is similar -- if not identical -- in appearance. Scholars consider this an _accidental_ scribal error that is facilitated by the _close proximity_ of the similarities.

I'll bet you don't recall the part about "close proximity" of homoioteleuton in your previous training in text criticism, huh?

Me neither.

That's because there is no such limitation. Dittography is not subject to the "close proximity" of homoioteleuton, as anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of text criticism would know.

lol!

[_Nomad]

Mak,

I await your grand unified theory of the KEP. Seriously, when you have it ready let us know. You said you have connections to Plano, Texas. If you are ever out here again I'll buy you lunch.

It looks to me like maklelan is substantially persuaded by the Schryver Unified Theory of the KEP. I know I am. It all fits together. It is supported by all the evidence. Both text-critical and historical. I haven't seen anyone even come close to bringing into question the thesis of the dependency of the EAG on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. Everything maklelan has presented in the past two weeks confirms that thesis. As far as I can tell at this point, the meaning and purpose of the KEP has been explained.

And the funnest part is watching the people here since then. It's very entertaining.

[_Kevin Graham]

Chris or Brent: Can you provide an explanation for why it would be at all reasonable to conclude Smith desired the same text be copied out twice on the same sheet of paper? This is the scenario that Kevin insists makes more sense than homoioteleuton.

I never said this and now you are just being disingenuous. What, is this your final step into the initiation process of MADB apologetics? I responded to this the first time you misrepresented my argument, but apparently you're only interested in straw man arguments.

Dan, the facts are clear now. Your understanding of the materials is pathetic, your understanding of basic English terms lacking, and above all, your comprehension skills are embarrassing as evidenced by your repeated misrepresentation of my argument. This is hardly teh hallmark of an objective "professional" interested only in respectful debate. I never once said Joseph Smith "desired the same text to be copied out twice on the same sheet." Not once.

So either you're aware of this and are being disingenuous, or you are unaware of it, meaning your comprehension skills make you unworthy of our attention.

[_Kevin Graham]

Nomad, keep proving what an idiot you are if you must.

I plan to do something in the next few days I should have done a long time ago. I'll put together a list of all the evidences favoring simultaneous dictation for Ms1a and Ms1b. I'll ask the mods to pin it so no one can ever complain that the argument has never been presented with evidences. And then you can ignore them the same way Wilbur has for four years now.

In the meantime, feel free to continue with the illicit pep-rally for your band of sore losers. I'm sure you make them proud. LOL.