Intellectual Bankruptcy of Book of Abraham apologetics

[The Stig]

It's not my fault that no one here addresses the evidence presented. Instead, all we hear is the same old refrain: "nothing but assertions with no evidence." Blah, blah, blah. All the while the actual points of evidence are increasing ...

Anyway, if you want to address the evidence, it's out there. Other than the forensic results concerning the Abr. 1:12 locus and the secondary emendations (which I'm not permitted to reference yet on a message board), I've listed several points of specific text-critical evidence.

You could start out with the several points in support of the dittograph. I've since developed some additional, but as yet unpresented evidence that I will post shortly. But in the meantime there is a good part of a thread dedicated to the discussion, beginning here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208052498

Metcalfe has never bothered to argue against any of it, except to say that no qualified text critic would consider it a dittograph. But the evidence is there, and was sufficient to convince Hamblin, Skousen, and even Chris Smith, until he regained his anti-Mormon senses and backed away from his initial (honest?) assessment of the evidence.

If you think you are capable of refuting the evidence, have at it CrackerMan.

Good luck ...

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have a question for either Will or Kevin (perhaps this has been answered elsewhere?):

Is there any primary evidence supporting the existence of this so-called "Q Document"? I.e., are there eyewitness statements referring to it, or anything like that? Or, have apologists simply assumed that it exists based on things they've observed in the KEP?

[_William Schryver]

I have a question for either Will or Kevin (perhaps this has been answered elsewhere?):

Is there any primary evidence supporting the existence of this so-called "Q Document"? I.e., are there eyewitness statements referring to it, or anything like that? Or, have apologists simply assumed that it exists based on things they've observed in the KEP?

Simply put: if KEPA #2 and #3 are copies, then there must be one (or more) Ms. #Q.

[_Kevin Graham]

Is there any primary evidence supporting the existence of this so-called "Q Document"?

No.

I.e., are there eyewitness statements referring to it, or anything like that?

No.

Or, have apologists simply assumed that it exists based on things they've observed in the KEP?

The assumption is based on apologetc necessity alone. They need it to exist, and so it must. Evidence means little to a testimony reinforced mind.

[_harmony]

This should be framed for future reference because it illustrates just what kind of fantasies these apologists love to entertain and it proves once again that they enter the topic with a stated agenda in mind.

*tweet* Foul! Not fair. Will is a far cry from "these apologists". He's just Will (thank you, God. One is enough), and the others shouldn't be held accountable for his shortcomings.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled argument.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have a question for either Will or Kevin (perhaps this has been answered elsewhere?):

Is there any primary evidence supporting the existence of this so-called "Q Document"? I.e., are there eyewitness statements referring to it, or anything like that? Or, have apologists simply assumed that it exists based on things they've observed in the KEP?

Simply put: if KEPA #2 and #3 are copies, then there must be one (or more) Ms. #Q.

But is there any primary evidence that Ms. #Q ever existed? It sounds like you and other apologists are *inferring* that Q exists based on things you are seeing in the KEP, yes? Or, do you have some more primary evidence indicating that Q actually existed? Just one tidbit--e.g., a journal entry, or something like that?

Or, instead, do you have some explanation as to what may have happened to Ms. #Q? I mean, the Church has historically been pretty good about saving, protecting, and preserving important historical documents. (The papyri notwithstanding, of course.)

I'm just trying to understand why you guys think that Ms. Q existed. Is it based purely on a few things you've spotted in the KEP?

[_William Schryver]

The assumption is based on apologetc necessity alone. They need it to exist, and so it must. Evidence means little to a testimony reinforced mind.

I’m pretty much convinced that you are no longer (assuming you ever were) capable of assessing any evidence. You’ve become nothing more than a rhetoric-production module. Too bad. You might have actually contributed to the discussion. As things stand now, you’re just a sideshow attraction.

[_Kevin Graham]

It's not my fault that no one here addresses the evidence presented. Instead, all we hear is the same old refrain: "nothing but assertions with no evidence." Blah, blah, blah. All the while the actual points of evidence are increasing ...

Funny man. Your so-called "evidence" has been addressed dozens of times, and you refuse to respond to criticism. Who do you think you are kidding?

Anyway, if you want to address the evidence, it's out there.

Been there, done that. Many times. You refuse to find your balls and answer the crticisms.

Other than the forensic results concerning the Abr. 1:12 locus and the secondary emendations (which I'm not permitted to reference yet on a message board), I've listed several points of specific text-critical evidence.

The same ridiculous, refuted points you've been mentioning for years. You're a broken record.

You could start out with the several points in support of the dittograph. I've since developed some additional, but as yet unpresented evidence that I will post shortly.

The dittograph has been addressed in extreme detail, covering points of evidence you refused to acknowledge to your audience at MADB.

Metcalfe has never bothered to argue against any of it, except to say that no qualified text critic would consider it a dittograph.

Well, it really wasn't worth responding to in a serious manner, because nobody could believe you were seriously arguing that the last porton which was copied, was copied by accident! This requires, not forensic experts, but rather a fortune teller. This is what your entire argument hangs upon! And I'm pretty sure Joseph Smith didn't leave a crystal ball with the Church. But I guess once the apologists make it clear they have nothing better to offer than this, and that they've put all your eggs in this silly dittograph basket, Brent will proceed to wreck yet another dreamed up apologetic.

But the evidence is there, and was sufficient to convince Hamblin, Skousen, and even Chris Smith, until he regained his anti-Mormon senses and backed away from his initial (honest?) assessment of the evidence.

Skousen, the same guy who thanked Brent Metcalfe for correcting him? As you already know, it is easy to convince these people of anything that has the potential to be faith promotng. Try convincing the staff at the University of Chicago or Brown University, who share a consensus that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Oh wait, the Church won't let them see the documents again. How convenient. You're left with a bunch of notorious apologsts as your "expert" witnesses. LOL. An apologist is the worst thing an academian can be, but they're proud of it. Their testimony probably wouldn't be permitted in a court of law due to the obvious conflict of interest.

If you think you are capable of refuting the evidence, have it CrackerMan.

It has already been done. I posted a thorough response the day you posted it years ago, and Paul Osborne, Celestial Kingdom and Brent discussed it in my forum. You popped in and made snide remarks, but refused to deal with the criticism head on. Dan Vogel proceeded to argue along the same lines at MADB as well.

The fact is I have responded to everything you clamed to present as evidence, and yet you and Haugld absolutely refuse to address the points of evidence I presented back n July 2006. I repeated the challenge in 2007, in 2008, and again a few weeks ago. You still refuse to answer the evidences that go against your pet copyist theory. Here they are:

I present 7 humdingers for the copyist theorists out there.

Please offer us a sound explanation that could possibly explain the following scribal phenomena within a copying context.

#1 - Abraham 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”

"Whereunto" is crossed out and corrected in transition by both scribes. "The" is crossed out replaced with "mine" by both scribes.
#2 - Abraham 1:9
Book of Abraham shagreel, Ms1a - shag = reel, Ms1b- shagreel
If the scribes were copying from a mysterious "source document" then why do they make spelling errors, and why do such errors tend to involve strange words that are difficult to discern audibly? If they were merely copying the mistakes intentionally - for whatever far fetched reason that is jumping around in Will's head - from a mysterious source document, then why do they make mistakes in copying the mistakes!?! That would kinda defeat the purpose wouldn't it?

#3 - Abraham 1:11
Book 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”
xxxxx is an illegible word that was crossed out by both scribes as the corrected term was made in transition. Again, here we see the scribes must have coincidentally made copying errors in the same exact manner in the same exact place. What are the chances?

#4 Abraham 1:12
Book 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"

"that is lying before you" was crossed out and corrected in transition by William Parrish in Ms1b. The partial mistake was made by Williams who was probably transcribing at a slower pace and was corrected before getting past "that is."

Excuse me, but how could a copyist, or anyone for that matter, possibly mistake "at the commencement of this record" for "that is lying before you." The only sound explanation is that this was dictated as the orator corrected a mistake in transition.

#5 - Abraham 1:13 ; 1:16
Book of Abraham - bedstead, Ms1a – bedsted, Ms1b – bed stead
Book of Abraham kinsfolk, Ms1a – kinsfolk, Ms1b – kin folks
Another strange word that the scribes were not sure how to spell. A copyist would have no excuse for misspelling words like these. And these were professional scribes, yet they both couldn't manage to copy the same word in the same way from the same document? The only reasonable explanation is that they misspelled them because they weren't copying them from a source document, they were writing them down as they heard them and spelled them out to the best of their abilities.

#6 - Abraham 1:17
Book 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”
The bold area was scratched out in transition. Williams and Parrish again make the same mistake coincidentally? Is that plausible? The fact that Parrish didn't quite finish the mistake (turn) is an indicator that the correction was given before he finished the phrase. And again, it is approaching the realm of impossibility, to think these scribes were copying a text, coincidentally made the same exact mistake again, and mistook "their hearts are turned" for "they have turned their hearts away."

#7 - Abraham 1:26
BoA- “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”
Both scribes wrote four illegible words before crossing them out and replacing them with the corrected text.

Now according to Brian Hauglid these can all be explained as "copying errors". How? He doesn't say. He just keeps asserting it. Will Schryver insists that all the evidence points to these manuscripts representing a copying effort. I tried to get Brian to explain his reasoning, only to be criticized for my "tone," immediately reprimanded by the FAIR mods and banned a week later.

I'd like to see someone step up to the plate and address the issues above for once, before offering more smoke and mirrors on the FAIR board, playing off the ignorance of a gullible audience. People are generally sensible, but the problem over at FAIR is that the big picture with all the data is not allowed to be demonstrated and argued intelligently. Only apologetic sermons are allowed because serious debate is not the goal there.

Since Brian doesn't seem to see the "bombastic certitude" expressed by Schryver, then allow me to point it out. I'll simply go through William's opening post and respond to the problems I see with his commments. From the beginning:

One of the standard critical arguments in relation to the Book of Abraham controversy is that the Book of Abraham supposedly links itself to the so-called “Sensen” (or “Book of Breathings Made by Isis”) text via its apparent internal reference to Facsimile #1, which is known to have originally preceded the Sensen text on the scroll of Hor. While the overall length of the scroll of Hor is a disputed question, we do know that the scroll begins with the illustration known as Facsimile #1, which was then immediately followed by the Sensen text, which was then followed by an unknown length of scroll.

What William and the rest of the apologetic camp seems to have completely overlooked, is the fact that this is not a uniquely "critical argument." This is how the Church has understood the relationship between Facsimile #1 and the Book of Abraham for more than a century. Every published version of the Book of Abraham has an opening page containing a blown up image of facsimile #1 (with Smith's corresponding and erroneous translations). The reason? Because the Book of Abraham 1:12 "links itself" to this papyrus.

The critics claim that additional strength is given their argument by the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. The documents known respectively as KEPA #2 and #3 each contain text of a little more than the first chapter of the Book of Abraham in the main body of their pages, and successive characters from the Sensen text in the left column.

Right.

Of course, the critical argument, originating with Edward Ashment decades ago

Who was at the time a faithful, practicing Mormon who was hired by the Church to study and analyze these documents.

has been that these two KEPA manuscripts are actually the transcripts of Joseph Smith’s orally-dictated “translation” of the Book of Abraham. And since we now know that the Sensen text has nothing to do with Abraham, then it follows that Joseph Smith’s purported “translation” was nothing of the sort; it is a fictionalized account originating in the mind of a pretended prophet. Or so the critics would have us believe.

Yes, and Will's last statement is a rhetorical technique (or so they would have us believe) which alludes to a promise of refutation. But the refutation never becomes realized. We just get more rheotorical allusions to credulity of the "critical argument."

Upon closer examination, however, some key questions must be considered: Is it incontrovertible that KEPA #2 and #3 are transcripts of an oral dictation? Is Abraham 1:12 an incontrovertible internal reference to Facsimile #1?

First and foremost, these are apologetic questions raised for apologetic reasons. These are not questions that would naturally invoke investigation. But since the consequences of the "critical argument" would otherwise prove destructive to faith, these questions are raised for the purposes of complicating what is rather simple to understand. And Will's "upon closer examination" is just more rhetoric. What he really means is "since we need to avoid the obvious conclusion at all costs."

We have previously examined question #1, and I have presented persuasive evidence that both of these manuscripts cannot be, in fact, simultaneously-produced transcripts of an oral dictation.

Here is the bombastic certitude Brent spoke of. Will has presented nothing new in two years (now three!) to suggest this proposition is false. He just keeps fighting it with silly rhetoric against the "critical argument." Before WIll even gets into his so-called analysis and list of evidences, he already declares a conclusion with bombastic certitude.

Despite certain elements that admittedly appear consistent with a dictation theory, there are numerous compelling, even overriding, evidences that establish these documents as being visual copies of some earlier document(s).

Again with the bombastic certitude. Compelling evidences? Overriding? To whom? Will states again that his theory has been "established" as a fact, yet one is hard pressed to find a single piece of evidence that clearly points in that direction. All we get is pages of rhetorical fluff.

Yet, when I asked Brian Hauglid to explain how the evidences pointing to a dictation scenario were to be explained, he simply asserted that they could be explained in the context of a copying session. He didn't explain why, he just asserted. And when I pressed him toi explain, I was reprimanded by the moderators for violating the "asked and answered" rule. Two years later neither of them have provided any real explanations. Will just keeps trying to make his proposal sound more plausible by trying to ridicule the "critics" for not considering other questions "after careful examination" of course.

Although I anticipate revisiting that topic in the near future, it will not be a subject for our current discussion.

What "discussion"? Nobody ever engages Will in what can only be described as "lectures," except Chris Smith, and he has already spent many, many posts refuting his nonsense over the years. Will just pretends none of this has already been dealt with.

Will then spends the rest of his long-winded post arguing something we never disagreed with. But he leaps to the conclusion that the insertion was "perhaps much later," which is supported by zero evidences. It is just his own bombastic assertion. And apparently Will provided an erroneous transcription and Brent called him on it, but Will doesn't seem to understand what he transcribed incorrectly. I thought this was a guy who had access to the "highly digitized scan".

====================

The above was written three years ago, and posted every year since in hopes that Will would find his balls and address these questions that undermine his apologetic.

Get ready for another bail out.

[_Kevin Graham]

Simply put: if KEPA #2 and #3 are copies, then there must be one (or more) Ms. #Q.

And if they represent dictations manuscripts, then there is no need for a mysterious Q document to have existed.

Advantage critics.

We don't need to invent missing evidence out of thin air to make our model feasible. The existing evidence we do have is abundant, and it fits nice and neatly with the propose model of dictation. By comparison, the copyist model cannot account for most of the evidence against it.

[_Kevin Graham]

Don't run off just yet Will.

You said I was the one who refused to respond to your claims. The evidence above shows that it is the other way around. Go find our balls and respond to these several points of criticism. Or hasn't Hauglid told you how to respond yet?