Dan I'm responding to your Critique of Ted Chandler post.
Dan,
There is a significant point I’d like to mention before commenting on your post. The Spalding theory does not assume that only Spalding’s manuscript was used. It also does not assume that Smith did not dictate or read from sources be it Spalding’s, Ridgon, the Bible or his ownwords to the scribe. I get the impression you assume that the Spalding theory suggests one and only one possible method, that the scribe sat and copied from a source. That’s an incorrect assumption. It is quite conceivable that Smith worked with the scribe and read to the scribe for parts and other parts the scribe may have copied straight from the source.
You wrote:
1. Scribe 2 mishears and for an in 1 Ne. 13:29
O-MS: & because of these things which are taken away out of the gosple of the Lamb & exceeding great many do stumble
Chandler asserts that this "could as easily be the result of visual misreading as mishearing." However, Skousen argues: "The use of the ampersand (&) shows that the error was not based on visual similarity. Hearing an, the scribe interpreted it as the casual speech form an' for and." (67) Skousen's explanation is far more likely.
I might be wrong but I get the impression that you are assuming the source document would have had to have had an ampersand. Let’s assume it didn’t but that the scribe chose to use it to shorten his work. So the scribe focusing on copying shortens their work and uses the ampersand, but as they are copying they aren’t focusing on content or context of words within the sentences and quickly looks at the cursively written “an” and assumes in haste it’s also an “and” If the scribe slowed down and focused on context and content, they’d realize it should be an “an” but likely with the extent of writing they had to do, content became of less significance than getting the majority of the words downs. Later corrections could always be made. Skousen and you for that matter are incorrect to assume this error can only indicate a hearing error. It is just as likely a function of the copier hurrying and not focusing on the meaning of the sentence and words within and attempting to take short cuts.
2. Cowdery mishears weed for reed in 1 Ne. 17:48
O-MS: & whoso shall lay their hands upon me shall wither even as a dried weed
Chandler again asserts that this "could as easily be the result of visual misreading as mishearing." While it's easy to see how the scribe could mishear "weed" for the less familiar "reed", Chandler does not explain how an "r" can look like a "w". Samples of Rigdon's handwriting in Joseph Smith's 1832-34 diary did not bear out Chandler's assertion.
There is a significant problem here with this analysis. The source document if there was one is not available for comparison purposes. My handwriting is very messy ( I developed the messiness from notetaking in previous years) I just wrote out for myself weed ..it’s too bad I can’t show it on here but not only is it difficult to read but the loops in my w could be interpreted as an r then another letter possibly an i maybe a u following the 'r' . My first “e” is one line/stroke going up with no loop while my second e has a slight loop. If that was in a sentence and someone was trying to figure out the word from the context..weed or reed could be interpreted. Dan it is just as plausible that the person reading the script, couldn’t decifer the word, perhaps the “e” and “d” at the end were clear as in my own example for myself and they then assumed the word was “weed”. As for this being an example of a “hearing” error only I disagree. While that is a possibility it is no more likely than a copying error. Here is why, if someone was dictating to me, I think I wouldn’t have any problem telling the difference between weed or reed unless they had a lisp. Of course if someone was dictating I'd could easily ask what word they meant if their words weren't clear.
3. Cowdery mishears meet for beat in Alma 57:22
O-MS: for it was they who did <meet> \beat/ the Lamanites
Chandler asserts: "either 'meet' or 'beat' fits the context of the sentence, which reads 'for it was they who did beat the Lamanites.' Perhaps Oliver Cowdery didn't mishear the word but simply decided to change it." Obviously, it's hard to explain how the scribe could misread "m" for a "b", which forces Chandler to offer a third option. However, the closeness in sound favors Skousen's interpretation.
Contrary to your claim, there is no closeness in sound between “m” and “b”. One is a soft sound and the other a hard sound. It is more plausible that a scribe rushing and not paying much attention to context thought ..”no it can’t be saying “beat” the Lamanites, it must be "meet" the Lamanites.
4. Cowdery mishears him for them in Alma 55:8 and Ether 8:17
O-MS: & behold they saw him <a> comeing & they hailed him but he sayeth unto <him> them not
Chandler asserts: "In the first him/them example, the word "him" occurs twice in the text before the incorrect occurrence; therefore, Oliver could simply have become confused while looking back and forth between an original text and his copy." Of course, it's possible that the scribe was about to start a dittograph but caught himself before the next word. So, it's not a definitive dittograph either. But it is well known problem in dictation, so Skousen's explanation seems more likely. Skousen: "One particular difficulty for the scribe occurred whenever Joseph Smith pronounced unstressed 'em (for either them] or him)." (68)
I agree with Chandler. The person copying is likely not focused on what he’s writing but much more focused on speed, getting the words down quickly and in doing so is not thinking. This mistake of 'him' versus 'them', could be based on hearing but it can also be based on assuming incorrectly that another “him” followed the other two previous him(s). Our perspective in analysis is much different than someone who would be concentrating on quickly copying words which often times would be difficult to read and at which point in copying they may have been tired and careless.
O-MS: wherefore Akish administered it unto his kindreds & friends leading (<%him%>|them) away by fair promises
Chandler asserts: "In the second him/them example, it may be that Oliver incorrectly anticipated what the next word was going to be." Anticipating the next word is more typical of dictation than copying from texts. But, again, Skousen's explanation from casual pronunciation is more likely.
What you don’t appear to be considering Dan is that the words if being copied were not necessarily easily decipherable. It can become frustrating and tiring deciphering long texts of messy cursive writing. If the copiest is trying speed things up, he may attempt to take short cuts, one being to read the whole sentence or at least a group of words ..commit those to memory and then write them down. Consequently mistakes such as in this particular example ..as others previously above can easily be made.
5. Cowdery mishears sons for son in Alma 41:14
O-MS: therefore my Sons see that ye are merciful unto your Brethren
Chandler skips over this example. This kind of error is a well-known problem in oral dictation. Skousen states: "The source of this error is the following word see, whose initial s sould have made it hard for Oliver Cowdery to hear any difference between son see and sons see. This passage comes from Alma's discourse to his son Corianton; he is speaking to only one son." (69) This error is corrected by Cowdery in the Printer's MS (P-MS).
Adding an extra “s” is an easy mistake which can be attributed to simple sloppiness. If Cowdery were paying attention to context he would have realized as he did the second time around in the Printer’s manuscript that it was 'son' not 'sons'. But perhaps the first time around he wasn’t paying attention to context and just attempting to get words down quickly, while making plenty of spelling mistakes along the way as pointed out by chandler in his list of spelling mistakes in the O manuscript. If Smith were to have dictated as you assume and didn’t use a source document to read off of, it can be argued that he would have understood well what he was saying. And given that, he would have paused i.e. he would have said “therefore my Son…taken a pause and cont’d …see that ye are merciful unto your brethren.” If reading from a source he is less likely to pause.
B. Problems of Vision.
Quote:
On the other hand, Skousen gives examples of changes made in the printer's manuscript (P), which he claims are due to visual misreading of the original manuscript (O) rather than mishearing. In one sentence, Oliver wrote "also" in P rather than "always" in O. In a second passage, he wrote "many" in P rather than "among" in O, and in a third he misread "pressing" written by scribe 3 in O and wrote "feeling" in P. If Oliver could misread "always" as "also" and "among" as "many," he could certainly also misread "an" as "and" and "reed" as "weed."
The problem with Chandler's reasoning here is that we know P-MS was visually copied, and "also" and "always", or "many" and "among", or "pressing" and "feeling" don't sound the same or similar. Whereas the examples cited by Skousen are well-known problems in oral dictation. I wouldn't say all of Skousen's examples have the same clarity, but Chandler ignores the best ones.
You’ve not demonstrated there is anything wrong with Chandler's reasoning. If one observes evidence that Cowdery substituted entirely different words when copying from the O manuscript to the P (printer’s manuscript), one can assume he could have done so when copying from a source text to the O manuscript…such as weed for reed. There is little value that I can see of attempting to show Cowdery made visual errors going from the O Ms to the Printer’s Manuscript. I’m not sure why you are bothering with that. There is no question that the original manuscript was copied so to look for evidence of that is not necessary.
However what Chandler was suggesting is that all sort of changes to spelling were made in the O manuscript, which could quite conceivably have been made as copy errors while rushing and later corrected upon reading it back again or even comparing it to the source. I’ll explain this with an example later.
Chandler" "Skousen's explanation for the pressing/feeling example is especially interesting. He says that scribe 3's "p" looks like an "f" and his elongated "s" looks like an "l." But there are literally hundreds of examples of this type of error in the original manuscript, none of which are ever mentioned by Skousen."
Dan: Again, the problem with Chandler's reasoning here is that his examples do not lead to misreadings of real words--they are simply malformed letters or an obviously wrong letter within the same word.
In other words, Skousen's examples of malformed letters lead the copyist to write another word instead of the one intended, such as the following--
Mosiah 15:9: <sanctified> \satisfied/
Mosiah 27:37: <deliver> declare
Alma 8:13: <cursed> \caused/
Alma 34:10: <sacrament> \sacrifice/
Alma 56:27: <prisoners> \provisions/
Alma 58:22: <suppose> \suffer/
Hel. 4:25: <cause> \cease/
3 Ne. 8:25: <burned> \buried/
3 Ne. 20:42 <reward> \rearward/
The above you point out were initially miscopied from O to P manuscript as totally different words but then corrected later either above or immediately following the word. Of course, comparison of the 2 texts the O and the P manuscript allows one to determine for a fact when a word has been completely changed. But we don’t have a source document to compare to with the O manuscript so there is no way to know with certainty which words may have been changed completely. But just the same if there are lots of examples of incorrect letters..resulting in misspellings in the O manuscript and no reason to misspell upon hearing the word..then it would seem those are copy mistakes. For example look at the first 2 which Chandler lists
1. there was also writher=writhen [written] upon them a new writeing (135:35)
2. be hated amorg=among all Nations (152:7)
If someone is dictating and says “written” why would the scribe write “writher” that appears to be a copy error. The same applies to #2. And so on with the rest of the errors Chandler lists. Yet these errors were corrected in the O manuscript. Inother words those sorts of spelling errors would be more likely in copying while a scribe is not focusied on making sense or using a valid word. If someone says to you “among” you aren’t likely to write “amorg. So all those spelling mistakes Chandler lists as being in the O manuscript and corrected are indicative of someone copying text not making the mistakes because of hearing wrong.
Whereas Chandler's examples are not substitute words, but rather malformed words, such as--
feace=peace
feople=people
ufon=upon
afopstles=apostles
pals=pass
Thus, Chandler argues--
Quote:
For example, in the original manuscript Oliver wrote an "f" for "p" while writing the word "peace" (385:13), and he wrote "f" for the second "p" in "People" (414:4). Even scribe 3 made this mistake, writing "f" for "p" in "upon" (98:8) and in the word "apostles" (107:6). In attempting to write the word "pass," scribe 3 first wrote "pals" but then changed the "l" to an elongated "s" (87:41). If Skousen accepts this type of example as proof of copying errors in the printer's manuscript, why does he not accept the evidence of copying in the original manuscript?
Chandler does not understand that this was Skousen's way of showing malformed letters that were sometimes later touched up by erasure or overwriting. Nevertheless, Chandler gives a couple of hundred or so examples of this type of correction, believing that they are evidence that O-MS was visually copied from a very poorly written manuscript, when in fact they prove no such thing.
What Chandler was showing is the errors are likely copy errors from a source document. But if someone is copying and not paying attention to context and being rather careless and rushing..they are quite likely to make lots of spelling errors especially when what they are copying from may be difficult to decipher which cursive often is. 
