The KEPA Manuscripts as Oral Dictation Transcripts

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Just to ensure that I've not misunderstood, are you saying that Brian Hauglid agrees with the analysis that you posted here, http://tinyurl.com/5kydej?

Cheers,

</brent>

[_dartagnan]

OMG, this is so Will Schryver.

LOL.

I love how he always refers to his apologetic theories as "compelling" and "persuasive" and "established" and are always based "upon closer examination." As if this "textual anomaly" is something we've all overlooked because we failed to examine it as "closely" as Will. As if it hasn't already been beaten to death in previous debates.

Nearly a year ago I commented on Will's modus operandi:

1) Try to make himself seem like he is in any sense a studious, diligent and objective observer, by conceding minor points and saying he is undecided on irrelevant facts.
2) Keep referring to himself as one who rubs elbows with "professional experts" who are the only ones who can really give us the truth.
3) Keep alluding to unspecified "evidences" which he says are "mounting" and that they will eventually "outweigh" the counter evidence.

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=312

Not much has changed it seems.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Brent,

Brian chimed in in support of Will's analysis over in the pundits thread.

-Chris

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi CaliforniaKid,

Please post Brian's comments here. Evidently to prevent me from responding to Brian, I've been banned from the MAD board. (FYI: Brian never replied to my email.)

My best,

</brent>

[_Bond...James Bond]

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Our present discussion will examine whether or not Abraham 1:12 constitutes an “internal reference” to Facsimile #1, and that therefore the book implicitly links itself to the Sensen text.

The published version of Abraham 1:12 - 13 reads:


[/indent]

I have emphasized the portion of the text that will be the focus of our examination.

Of course, the illustration to which this phrase refers is plainly the vignette known as Facsimile #1 – the lion couch scene where a priest with a drawn knife stands over a man laid on his back on an altar.

At first glance, it would appear (if we are assuming this to actually be the record of Abraham) that Abraham is clearly stating that this illustration immediately precedes his record. And, since we know the Sensen text followed the vignette in question on the scroll of Hor, and since we know the Sensen text is not the record of Abraham … well, everyone understands the implications.

However, upon closer examination of the all-important KEPA Mss. #2 and #3, it becomes apparent that there is something quite unusual about Abraham 1:12. In KEPA Ms. #2, the phrase ”I will refer you the representation at the commencement of this record.” is, in fact, a later interlineal insertion in the text. Originally, the text read:





The interlineal insertion apparently commenced with a parenthesis, the bottom of which overlays the cross of the “t” and the ascender of the “h” in the word “the” preceding “form of a bedsted.” Then the scribe, apparently recognizing that he could not insert the full phrase intended in the space following the parenthesis, commenced writing “I will refer you …” further to the left and even further above the parenthesis – the word “will” necessarily rising to avoid the top of the parenthesis. He then proceeds to write the remainder of the line to “that is at the …” and then finishes the phrase by starting with “commencement …” immediately after the parenthesis. There is no closing parenthesis.

The size of the letters in the entire phrase are, on average, less than 70% the size of the letters above and below the insertion, thus reinforcing the conclusion that the scribe was consciously attempting to fit the phrase into a space circumscribed by lines above and below. Here are relevant examples, the first being a typical instance of the word “of” on the page, and the second the instance of “of” in the phrase in question:



Significantly, the entire phrase from “I will refer you …” to “commencement of this record.” was inserted after Williams had continued to verse 13, perhaps even much later.

In addition to this anomaly attested in KEPA #2, we also see something unusual at the same point in KEPA #3 – unusual, and yet quite different.

In Warren Parrish’s manuscript at this point, we see the following:




Parrish includes the entire phrase “that is lying before you” and then strikes it out afterwards.

Now, what does this all mean? That is a good question, and I don’t pretend to have a complete answer.

What it does mean is that there was quite obviously some question, doubt, dispute, uncertainty, etc., about how to make reference to the illustration now known as Facsimile #1.

Possibilities that I have contemplated include the following:


Joseph Smith knew which Egyptian text corresponded to his “translation” of the Book of Abraham, and that it was not adjacent to the illustration of the altar. The revealed text originally read:

[indent]“… that you may have a knowledge of this altar, it was after the form of a bedstead …”

The entire sentence “I will refer you to the representation (that is lying before you) at the commencement of this record” is a redaction introduced to the text by Joseph Smith in 1835.
Joseph Smith knew which Egyptian text corresponded to his “translation” of the Book of Abraham, and recognized that it was not adjacent to the illustration of the altar. Indeed, it was after the Sensen text on the scroll. (A distinct possibility underscored by Professor Gee’s most recent analysis concerning the original quantity of papyri. Read here. ) However, it originally read:

“… that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation that is lying before you.”

Joseph Smith, recognizing that the text made reference to the illustration at the beginning of the scroll, modified the descriptive phrase to read “at the commencement of this record” since he planned to use the illustration in his published version of the Book of Abraham, and to place it at “the commencement” of the text.
.
Neither Joseph Smith nor any of his scribes actually knew with certainty which set of Egyptian characters on the scrolls corresponded to Joseph’s previously-received revelation of the first few chapters of the Book of Abraham. However, since that revealed text made reference to the illustration which they did recognize on the scroll, they mistakenly assumed that the set of Egyptian characters following the illustration (the Sensen text) was in fact the Egyptian source of the text of the Book of Abraham. In this scenario, the original revealed text read either:


“… that you may have a knowledge of this altar, it was after the form of a bedstead …”


- or -


“… that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation that is lying before you.”


In this scenario, as with the others, the phrase directing the reader to an illustration “at the commencement of this record” is also a redaction introduced into the text by Joseph Smith in 1835.

In any case, it is apparent that the theory, advanced by critics of Joseph Smith, that attempts to link the Book of Abraham to the Sensen text on the basis of this particular verse, is a facile simplification that ignores the anomalous textual evidence manifest in these earliest known examples of the book’s text.

Hi all,

Although from a text-critical stance one can find some areas of ambiguity
in Will's proffered textual analysis, it would certainly surprise me, from a
text-critical point of view, to say Ms 2 (Ashment=1a) line 37 starting with
"I will refer . . ." and line 38 "(commencement of . . ." is not a later
interlinear/sublinear insertion.

Cheers,
Brian

[Guest]

Will just said at MADB: "I really cannot envision any other plausible explanation...If there is a better explanation for the text-critical evidence, I am certainly willing to consider it."

Really? Just last November we mopped the floors with Will here and in that thread he said:

"I will state that Chris’ assertion...is completely without merit in my opinion"

So having been exposed to several critical viewpoints just last November, now he says he hasn't seen nor can he even envision another plausible explanation.

Ths hilarious thing about Will is that he always tries to compensate for his weak arguments by insisting they are a matter of fact. He always presents his commentary as an attempt to question and eximane claims but all the while he is throwing in the rhetorical jargon of absolutism. Here are some choice snippets from Will.

"I will refer you the representation at the commencement of this record. is, in fact, a later interlineal insertion in the text." - Wow. A "fact" huh? So much for discussion. The case is already closed, along with Will's mind.
"I have presented persuasive evidence..." - Says who?

"numerous compelling, even overriding, evidences that establish..." - Compelling according to whom?

"upon closer examination of the all-important KEPA..." - Says who?? Closer than whose? Metcalfe's 25 years of studies?

"I've looked into the details at least as fully and carefully as anyone ever has" - Says who?? This is absolutely laughable. Will is trying to make himself some kind of privileged authority here. Metcalfe has had access to the complete collection for at least 10 times longer than Will. And nobody knows just what kind of limited access Will has had to the KEP photos anyway. Does he have the full color collection at his disposal (highly doubtful), does he have to meet Hauglid for lunch to see the full collection (Does Hauglid even have the full collection? He only presented a small fraction at the conference) or does Will wait for Hauglid to throw him a bone with emailed snapshots?

[_dartagnan]

Brent,

Brian's post was quite short. This is all he said:

Hi all,

Although from a text-critical stance one can find some areas of ambiguity
in Will's proffered textual analysis, it would certainly surprise me, from a
text-critical point of view, to say Ms 2 (Ashment=1a) line 37 starting with
"I will refer . . ." and line 38 "(commencement of . . ." is not a later
interlinear/sublinear insertion.

Cheers,
Brian

[_Who Knows]

Will - let me ask you a quick question. Do you really think Joseph Smith could translate egyptian? In other words, do you really think he had a text, that, if still in existence, and translated today by egyptologists, would translate into the text of the Book of Abraham?

Based on your 'contemplated possibilities', it appears that you don't even consider it a possibility that the text used by Joseph Smith to 'translate' the Book of Abraham came from the extant text (adjacent to fac. 1). Is this correct?

[_Canucklehead]

I don't have access to "high-resolution" scans of the KEPA documents, and I don't have any idea who Brian Hauglid is, so I must defer to Will "My-Two-Nuts-Produce-Lots-of-Testosterone" Schryver.

However, I wonder if someone could explain to me why the KEPA documents matter in evaluating the Book of Abraham. Isn't this discussion missing the point here a bit? I mean, we have the facsimiles published directly in the Mormon canon alongside Joseph Smith' "translations" and, surprise surprise, they don't match up. Isn't that enough direct evidence to conclude that Joseph Smith was simply pulling stuff out of his butt to impress gullible audiences?

[_Who Knows]

However, I wonder if someone could explain to me why the KEPA documents matter in evaluating the Book of Abraham.

If you asked both sides (critics and apols) i'm sure they'd both say it doesn't really matter all that much.

From a critic point of view, it's just one piece of evidence in a longer list, that point to the Book of Abraham as being derived by Joseph Smith from the extant papyri.

From the apol. point of view - well, they're just trying to knock down those pieces of evidence one by one. But if Joseph Smith did derive the Book of Abraham from the extant papyri, well, no biggie either (there are other theories that are acceptable to them that incorporate the KEP - catalyst theory for example).

So, really, it doesn't matter a whole lot. But it's fascinating (for some) to watch, regardless. Sort of like watching a creationist debate. heh.