DiscussMormonism.com

For those of you banned from MADB, here is Brent Metcalfe's analysis of the parallels between Williams' repeated text in ms. 1a ([4a] & [4b]) and the corresponding verses in Parrish's second manuscript (ms. 2 [7]).

(posted with Brent's permission)

It strongly suggests that Parrish copied the first instance of Abr. 2:3-5 from Williams' manuscript, correcting his punctuation and capitalization as he went along, but repeating his "the" vs. "thee" homophonic error ("the" is sometimes pronounced "thee").

I believe the second instance of Abr. 2:3-5 in ms. 1a was dictated from Parrish's ms. 2, as evidenced by the abbreviations, loss of margin, slanted/cramped writing, homophonic "thee" & "sarah", lack of punctuation and various emendations.

Most importantly, Parrish's first manuscript (ms. 1b) and Williams' first instance of the repeated text both end in "Haran". So we're looking at a homoioteleuton across manuscripts, involving two people who were interrupted for several days, which fits with the Parrish-copies-then-dictates scenario.

Mortal Man,

What in, or in addition to, this theory accounts for the lack of a left-hand margin character in Abr Ms 1a on the first line after the dittograph, the line where Abr 2:6 begins?

sock puppet wrote:Mortal Man,

What in, or in addition to, this theory accounts for the lack of a left-hand margin character in Abr Ms 1a on the first line after the dittograph, the line where Abr 2:6 begins?

It suggests to me that the dictator (I'm leaning towards OC atm) was not pausing at each character to receive divine inspiration but simply reading off Parrish's ms. 2, beginning where his ms. 1b left off.

Mortal Man wrote:

sock puppet wrote:Mortal Man,

What in, or in addition to, this theory accounts for the lack of a left-hand margin character in Abr Ms 1a on the first line after the dittograph, the line where Abr 2:6 begins?

It suggests to me that the dictator (I'm leaning towards OC atm) was not pausing at each character to receive divine inspiration but simply reading off Parrish's ms. 2, beginning where his ms. 1b left off.

So the repetition might not have been homoioteleuton or otherwise visual orientation, but an error nonetheless?

It might have been an assumption by the dictator that Abr Ms 1a was only completed to the same point that Abr Ms 1b was?

And the source for dictation was Abr Ms 2, which had been completed up through Abr 2:18?

And since the extant Abr Ms 1a ends abruptly, mid-sentence, it is likely that the dictation continued beyond page 4?

Wow. That requires much less conjecture about what took place than the homoioteleuton notion.

by the way, why OC?

sock puppet wrote:So the repetition might not have been homoioteleuton or otherwise visual orientation, but an error nonetheless?

I think the "Haran" homoioteleuton probably did play a role but not in the manner that Dan and Will advocate. Rather than Williams and/or Smith returning to the wrong "Haran" on a hypothetical "Q" source, I see Williams saying (after a several day break) to Cowdery or Parrish or Phelps or Smith (in that order of probability) something like, "Can you read to me what came after 'Haran' so I can update my copy?" At that point the dictator may have picked up Parrish's ms. 1b, saw that it ended in "...daughter of Haran", then located "...daughter of Haran" in Parrish's ms. 2 and began dictating from that point.

It might have been an assumption by the dictator that Abr Ms 1a was only completed to the same point that Abr Ms 1b was?

Yes, that's why I think a new dictator was involved.

And the source for dictation was Abr Ms 2, which had been completed up through Abr 2:18?

That's what the evidence suggests. (Brent mentioned that, if he can find the time, he may extend the comparison to include the corresponding text in Richards' ms. 3.)

And since the extant Abr Ms 1a ends abruptly, mid-sentence, it is likely that the dictation continued beyond page 4?

Yes, I see no reason why it wouldn't have continued on a missing page through 2:18.

Wow. That requires much less conjecture about what took place than the homoioteleuton notion.

The textual evidence suggests that:
1. Williams' ms. 1a and Parrish's ms. 1b were entirely dictated.
2. The dictation was simultaneous through “...daughter of Haran.”
3. Parrish copied his own ms. 1b to produce ms. 2.
4. After “...daughter of Haran” he copied the first instance of Williams dittograph, from “Now the Lord had said...” to “Therefore he continued in Haran.” (Abr. 2:3-5)
5. At the end of his copying, Parrish changed his ink and took dictation (making fresh errors) from Abr. 2:6 through Abr. 2:18.
6. The slant of Williams’ handwriting changes in the second instance of his dittograph, indicating (along with the lack of punctuation, abbreviations, homophonic changes and several other factors) that the dictation was faster than it was in the first instance.
7. The second instance of the repeated text is consistent with dictation (not copying) from Parrish’s ms. 2.

by the way, why OC?

There’s probably no way to know for sure but he’d just returned from New York and would certainly have been interested in the recent translation. He also very likely at this time suggested to Joseph and Parrish to move “god of Pharaoh” down to the crocodile. He would have been more susceptible to the cross-manuscript homoioteleuton, since he wasn’t there for the first dictation (where Parrish got interrupted). And he wouldn’t have bothered with the Egyptian margin characters, since that’s not how they did it for the Book of Mormon.

I’m not tied to OC though, the dictator for Williams’ repeated text could have been anybody.

Mortal Man wrote:The textual evidence is as follows:
1. Williams' ms. 1a and Parrish's ms. 1b were entirely dictated.
2. The dictation was simultaneous through “...daughter of Haran.”
3. Parrish copied his own ms. 1b to produce ms. 2.
4. After “...daughter of Haran” he copied the first instance of Williams dittograph, from “Now the Lord had said...” to “Therefore he continued in Haran.” (Abr. 2:3-5)
5. At the end of his copying, Parrish changed his ink and took dictation (making fresh errors) from Abr. 2:6 through Abr. 2:18.
6. The slant of Williams’ handwriting changes in the second instance of his dittograph, indicating (along with the lack of punctuation, abbreviations, homophonic changes and several other factors) that the dictation was faster that it was for the first iteration.
7. The second instance of the repeated text is consistent with dictation (not copying) from Parrish’s ms. 2.

This explanation is very persuasive to me. It seems to account for all of the evidence that we have to date.

Too bad Mak ran away. I would like to know what he thinks of this.

dblagent007 wrote:

Mortal Man wrote:The textual evidence is as follows:
1. Williams' ms. 1a and Parrish's ms. 1b were entirely dictated.
2. The dictation was simultaneous through “...daughter of Haran.”
3. Parrish copied his own ms. 1b to produce ms. 2.
4. After “...daughter of Haran” he copied the first instance of Williams dittograph, from “Now the Lord had said...” to “Therefore he continued in Haran.” (Abr. 2:3-5)
5. At the end of his copying, Parrish changed his ink and took dictation (making fresh errors) from Abr. 2:6 through Abr. 2:18.
6. The slant of Williams’ handwriting changes in the second instance of his dittograph, indicating (along with the lack of punctuation, abbreviations, homophonic changes and several other factors) that the dictation was faster that it was for the first iteration.
7. The second instance of the repeated text is consistent with dictation (not copying) from Parrish’s ms. 2.

This explanation is very persuasive to me.

I'm sure it is.

It seems to account for all of the evidence that we have to date.

Does it now? LOL!

Too bad Mak ran away. I would like to know what he thinks of this.

As I've noted elsewhere, Dan has just moved from Provo to Canada. He was so intimidated by Andrew's amazing arguments he just had to leave the country.

Incidentally:

1. False
2. False
3. Possibly, or at least partly, true.
4. Possible, but rather unlikely, for reasons I refuse to divulge at present.
5. Irrelevant to the question of dittography in Ab2.
6. You're obviously not familiar with Williams' handwriting style variations, even within Ab2. Even so, this argument does not militate against a dittograph, it only underscores what I've always said: that Williams committed the dittograph after a considerable period of being away from the manuscript.
7. Patently false.

If these arguments, as presented above, constitute an accurate reflection of Metcalfe's thoughts on the matter, then I will be positively thrilled to see them formalized via publication.

Incidentally, his transcriptions above contain errors--at least one that appears to be downright deceptive in its nature.

Mortal Man wrote:The textual evidence is as follows:
1. Williams' ms. 1a and Parrish's ms. 1b were entirely dictated.
2. The dictation was simultaneous through “...daughter of Haran.”
3. Parrish copied his own ms. 1b to produce ms. 2.
4. After “...daughter of Haran” he copied the first instance of Williams dittograph, from “Now the Lord had said...” to “Therefore he continued in Haran.” (Abr. 2:3-5)
5. At the end of his copying, Parrish changed his ink and took dictation (making fresh errors) from Abr. 2:6 through Abr. 2:18.
6. The slant of Williams’ handwriting changes in the second instance of his dittograph, indicating (along with the lack of punctuation, abbreviations, homophonic changes and several other factors) that the dictation was faster that it was for the first iteration.
7. The second instance of the repeated text is consistent with dictation (not copying) from Parrish’s ms. 2.

William Schryver wrote:5. Irrelevant to the question of dittography in Ab2.

Will, could you post a snippet of your hi-res photo beginning with line 20 to the end of page 7 of Abr Ms 1 (Phelps-Parrish scribed)?

Will, note that I didn't put you down as someone that I cared about what you thought about MM's theory. Why? Because I knew that your response would be ripe with unsupported conclusions (see actual response for confirmation). Now if you actually found and posted some evidence to support your conclusions then . . . well . . . you would cease being Will Schryver.

Over on Mad:

Mak wrote:I wish upon a star that you were able to prove me wrong, but, unfortunately, I never seem to be wrong when it comes to this.

Okay critics, you are now on notice. Mak is never wrong when it comes to the Book of Abraham. It's as if he is God. Let us all bow and pray that he will condescend to our level and reveal some new nugget of knowledge about the Book of Abraham.