The KEPA Manuscripts as Oral Dictation Transcripts

[_dartagnan]

Will here is something I posted on the Book of Abraham forum, last year in October:

#1 - Abraham 1:4 "Whereunto" is crossed out and corrected in transition by both scribes.
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”

#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 make spelling errors, and why do such errors tend to involve strange words that are difficult to discern audibly?

#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, if these were copies then the scribes must have coincidentally made copying errors in the same exact manner in the same exact places. 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. The partial mistake was made by Williams who was probably transcribing at a slower pace and was corrected before getting past "that is." But the point here is that Brian and now Kerry Shirts, have argued that these can all be explained as "copying" errors just the same.

Excuse me, but how could anyone visually 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. It is simply unfathomable that this could possibly be a copying error.

#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.

#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? 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, and 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. 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.

[_William Schryver]

Kevin,

Thanks for your efforts to compile these arguments together in one place. I think there are still some things for you to add, but rather than making suggestions, I’ll simply depend on you to present all the arguments you believe support the premise of these documents being simultaneous transcripts of an oral dictation.

I would like to rebut two things you stated at the end of your post:

Now according to Brian Hauglid these can all be explained as copying errors.

This is not true. Brian does not believe this, and to my knowledge, he has never stated such a thing.

Will Schryver insists that all the evidence points to these manuscripts representing a copying effort.

This is also not true. I have, on numerous occasions, stated that I can see what appears to be contradictory evidence in these manuscripts. I am not blind to the evidence for dictation. Quite to the contrary. Indeed, what you have presented so far, if viewed in isolation, would almost seem to make the conclusion unquestionable.

In any event, I appreciate what you have done so far. I look forward to your future posts. I’m hoping that Paul will return to the thread and give some of his thoughts as well.

[_dartagnan]

Well, for the record, I do believe that the little evidence you guys have presented for a copying effort, can be explained in a dictation scenario. I have yet to see any evidences presented by you guys that match the above in quantity or quality. Hauglid tried presenting his best examples in the pundits forum but Metcalfe pretty much rendered them moot.

This is not true. Brian does not believe this, and to my knowledge, he has never stated such a thing.

Yes he did. I remember specifically pressing him to explain these occurrences at MAD, shortly before I was banned. I didn't think he adequately explained them so I kept repeating the request, only to be reprimanded by the mods for breaking the "asked and answered" rule.

He simply asserted that these could be explained in a copying context, but he only asserted it, he never could explain how. Shorty afterwards I posted the above on the Book of Abraham forum for either you or Hauglid to respond in detail. Neither of you chose to do so at the time and it has been more than a year now.

I understand Brian's views have changed somewhat over the past year, thanks to an informative private correspondence with Metcalfe, no doubt. Apparently, Brian admitted to having walked into this thing pretty "green," which makes perfect sense since he was posting at MAD as Al Ghazali, just two months before his FAIR presentation, and it was perfectly he clear he did not have a strong grasp of the KEP at that time. Then he quickly managed to gain access to the KEP and write up a hasty analysis for a much needed apologetic presentation.

Hauglid had disappointed me in more ways than one. I was reading through our early exchanges last week. He and Gee seem to use the same technique of subterfuge and half-truths. FOr example, in Gee's guide, I was reading on the plane, he said teh KEP were written by men who had served at some point in time, as Joseph Smith's scribes.

Is that false? No.

Is it misleading? Yes.

Why? Because Gee knew very well that these men were serving as Smith's scribes when these KEP were written, but he chose to word his sentence in this way in order to allow room for the readers to believe the KEP were written by men who were not serving as scribes at the time. This would open up further plausibility for a theory that tries to distance Joseph Smith from the work.

When I noted Gee's error in his two ink argument, Hauglid said, "Gee doesn't believe this." The way he said this makes it sounds like I was misrepresenting Gee. Hauglid felt he couldn't really tell the whole truth and say "Gee no longer believes this." Why? I guess it seems embarrassing to acknowledge the Church's primary apologist backtracking in light of Metcalfe's arguments.

[_William Schryver]

This is not true. Brian does not believe this, and to my knowledge, he has never stated such a thing.

Yes he did. I remember specifically pressing him to explain these occurrences at MAD, shortly before I was banned. I didn't think he adequately explained them so I kept repeating the request, only to be reprimanded by the mods for breaking the "asked and answered" rule.

Well, I'm not interested in debating this point ad nauseum, but I've been talking with Brian about these things at least once or twice a month for over a year now, and the conversation always acknowledges the strength of the evidence for copying -- specifically the common emendations. It's certainly true that both of us have entertained transient theories on how certain of these common emendations could be viewed within the larger context of copying, but I would say that I haven't yet arrived at any satisfactory thesis that explains the common emendations within a context of the manuscripts being copies. I know what some of Brian's ideas are. I have a few ideas of my own. But in no sense could it be claimed that we under-appreciate the strength of the critical position vis-a-vis the common emendations. The question is whether there is other evidence that argues against the notion of these being dictation transcripts. And, as this thread proceeds, I am anxious to see what the critical response will be as I ask some specific questions about elements of the manuscripts that seem inconsistent with a dictation session.

Perhaps this would be a good time to introduce the first question: how do you explain the strange discrepancy between the two manuscripts at Abraham 1:12 within the context of a dictation session? You talked about it briefly above. I understand your simple answer is that Parrish was writing faster than Williams. But how does that answer address the fact that the Williams document apparently shows an interlinear insertion of the words "I will refer you to the representation that is at the (commencement of this record." I have argued that this insertion was made after the subsequent paragraph had been written; that the parenthesis preceding "commencement" overlays the word "the" in the first sentence of the following paragraph: "It was made after the form ..."

I'm not certain what Metcalfe's position is on this question. A couple weeks ago (on this board) he promised to address what he characterized as my "maladroit" analysis, but he never followed up. I'm actually quite curious to learn his explanation of this question. All I know is that I have spent a considerable amount of time looking at this particular portion of Ms. #2 and I feel that my analysis is solid. But I am certainly willing to consider alternate explanations. If my observation is correct, it would seem, at least at first glance, to conflict with the answer given above that Parrish was simply writing faster than Williams.

I look forward to your reply . . .

[_dartagnan]

Perhaps this would be a good time to introduce the first question: how do you explain the strange discrepancy between the two manuscripts at Abraham 1:12 within the context of a dictation session? You talked about it briefly above. I understand your simple answer is that Parrish was writing faster than Williams. But how does that answer address the fact that the Williams document apparently shows an interlinear insertion of the words "I will refer you to the representation that is at the "commencement of this record."

I fail to see the need of worrying about answering what appears to be an irrelevant question; unless of course you can explain how this is supposed to be incongruous with a dictation scenario. I fail to see it. I see Williams clumsily letting his sentence drift upwards (for whatever reason that distracted him) until it crashes into the line above. At this point he probably realized he had one of two choices to make. He could 1) continue to write all subsequent sentences with the upward angle or he could 2) try to level it all out again, knowing that if he did this, it would leave a huge gap in the middle of the page. I suspect he went with option two and decided to fill in the expected gap with the rest of the sentence.

In any event, I do not think it a mere coincidence that both manuscripts show these errors in this exact spot, especially since their errors tend to be identical in all other areas as well. If the rest of these errors can only be explained as dictation errors, then this strongly suggests that this error is somehow related to dictation as well.

I have argued that this insertion was made after the subsequent paragraph had been written;

But this theory runs up against the facts that 1) the Parrish manuscript clearly shows no indication of this at all and 2) it appears we already know why the insertion was made. The insertion was made in response to the ascending line above. I mean did the scribe somehow know that at some future time (after the session) he would need to insert another phrase? Even if we grant this unlikely scenario, he probably would have made space on the next line, as opposed to squeezing it into the middle of the paragraph.

that the parenthesis preceding "commencement" overlays the word "the" in the first sentence of the following paragraph: "It was made after the form ..."

I fail to see how this suggests it was an after the fact insertion. He could have very well written the "the" to accommodate the preexisting parenthesis. Or not. Space doesn't seem to be that big of a deal for a man who just crammed this phrase in there like he did. Your theory also flies in the face of Gee's claim that the entire Book of Abraham, as published, had already been translated by the Prophet. And I see no reason to go back and insert a needless phrase like this in the first place. But ultimately I see very little here that could even begin to dent the ironclad position of the dictation thesis. I mean even if we were to grant that this was a subsequent insertion, it would do nothing to take away from the dictation argument. What's to stop them from going back and adding phrases to the original dictation manuscripts?

[_William Schryver]

KG:

I fail to see the need of worrying about answering what appears to be an irrelevant question; unless of course you can explain how this is supposed to be incongruous with a dictation scenario. I fail to see it. I see Williams clumsily letting his sentence drift upwards (for whatever reason that distracted him) until it crashes into the line above. At this point he probably realized he had one of two choices to make. He could 1) continue to write all subsequent sentences with the upward angle or he could 2) try to level it all out again, knowing that if he did this, it would leave a huge gap in the middle of the page. I suspect he went with option two and decided to fill in the expected gap with the rest of the sentence.

I don’t think you have understood the nature of the interlinear insertion. I explained my analysis in the “Will Schryver: Kneel Before Zod” thread you started:

The interlinear insertion commenced with a parenthesis, which overlaid the first line of the following paragraph. Then Williams, recognizing that he could not insert the full phrase intended in the space following the parenthesis, commenced writing “I will refer you …” even further above – the word “will” 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 line by starting with “commencement …” immediately after the parenthesis. There is no closing parenthesis.

As I see it, Williams did not let his “sentence drift upwards … until it crashes into the line above.” Rather, as I argued in the quote above, it appears to me that he commenced the insertion with the parenthesis, then after recognizing he lacked the room to complete the insertion, he started writing “I will refer you …” in the space above the parenthesis. The point being that the entire phrase was written after he had, at least, completed the paragraph that corresponds with verse 13. The significance of this is that it would appear to conflict with the explanation you offered about why Parrish had written “that is lying before you” before Williams got to that point. Rather, it would appear that Williams had not only gotten to that point, but had gone beyond it and continued with his transcription before he ever returned to add the insertion to which I refer.

Granted, alone it means little. What it means in conjunction with other facts remains to be discussed/determined. The point I have always stressed is that there was apparent confusion about how to phrase verse 12 – the very verse that refers to the illustration and its location in relationship to the text.

I understand that you are working with the photocopied microfilm images, so perhaps this is not as apparent to you as it seems to be to me. I will allow that there is perhaps another possible interpretation of the text-critical evidence. But for now my conclusion is as I have explained above. The entire phrase from “I will refer you …” to “commencement of this record.” was inserted after Williams had continued to verse 13, and presumably beyond.

Again, I appreciate your efforts to explain your views and I trust that we can keep things focused on the facts, or on how we each see those facts – and do so as dispassionately as possible.

I look forward to your reply . . .

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

My well-intended hope to comment on your textual history of Abr. 1:12 was scarcely a "promise"—my life's plate is currently very full; online banter isn't a high priority.

But I do want to quickly note that your argument from compositional order hinges on a rather dubious premise. You contend:

The interlinear insertion commenced with a parenthesis, which overlaid the first line of the following paragraph.

[Bold emphasis added.]

Please describe your method for determining that Frederick Williams' "parenthesis" is a subsequent interlinear insertion, "which overlaid the first line of the following paragraph" (accompanying photographic evidence would also help).

I look forward to your thoughtful reply.

My best,

</brent>

[_dartagnan]

As I see it, Williams did not let his “sentence drift upwards … until it crashes into the line above.”

If he didn't let it drift upwards, then who did? It clearly does drift upwards.

Rather, as I argued in the quote above, it appears to me that he commenced the insertion with the parenthesis, then after recognizing he lacked the room to complete the insertion, he started writing “I will refer you …” in the space above the parenthesis.

This sounds whacky to me. If for no other reason, it suggests Williams, for some mysterious purpose, decided to drop down a line in the middle of the page to insert a phrase that he would immediately choose not to complete, even though he had plenty of room to complete it (contrary to your perception). Your arguments tend to rely on a number of questionable variables that didn't exist beforehand.

You initially said "this insertion was made after the subsequent paragraph had been written." If so, then this suggests the purpose of inserting this phrase (whatever that was) presented itself after the entire page had been completed. So how did he know to leave a space there for it in transition?

The point being that the entire phrase was written after he had, at least, completed the paragraph that corresponds with verse 13.

I fail to see how you managed to make that leap. But then, I think you've lost me on much of your theory here.

The significance of this is that it would appear to conflict with the explanation you offered about why Parrish had written “that is lying before you” before Williams got to that point.

Which seems to be the main reason "significance" is being sought after. The sole purpose of this theory's existence seems based on a need to come up with something, anything that could somehow cast a shadow of doubt on the dominanting theory. But I don't see how even this would do that. You still have not dealt with the Parrish manuscript which shows absolutely no signs of what you suggest, and corroborates well with the dictation scenario.

The entire phrase from “I will refer you …” to “commencement of this record.” was inserted after Williams had continued to verse 13, and presumably beyond.

And again, the scribe somehow saw the future, knowing he would need to conveniently leave an open spot for it? Come now. This is beyond the realm of plausibility, even for apologists.

Again, I appreciate your efforts to explain your views and I trust that we can keep things focused on the facts, or on how we each see those facts – and do so as dispassionately as possible.

Well I'm, actually hoping I have completely misunderstood what you are saying.

[_Who Knows]

A photo of the section of the mss. being discussed would be appreciated. :) (and no, i don't mean those cruddy black and white photos).

[_William Schryver]

Brent:

Please describe your method for determining that Frederick Williams' "parenthesis" is a subsequent interlinear insertion, "which overlaid the first line of the following paragraph" (accompanying photographic evidence would also help).

The evidence appears to strongly support the conclusion that the phrase

I will refer you to the representation that is at the
(commencement of this record

is a secondary emendation; that the document initially read:

… and that you might have a knowl-
-edge of this alter
It was made after, the form of a bedsted …

The text-critical and orthographic evidence that supports this conclusion is as follows:

1. The parenthesis preceding “commencement” overwrites the cross of the “t” and the initial ascender of the “h” in the word “the” that appears on the subsequent line “It was after the form of a bedsted.” This is satisfactorily apparent when viewing the unmagnified document, but it is much more apparent under magnification.

2. The parenthesis was apparently the first character written when the emendation occurred. This is evidenced by the fact that “I will refer …” must necessarily rise in the available space in order to avoid the top of the parenthesis.

3. The text of the entire emendation is condensed, both vertically and horizontally, in order to fit itself in the available space. The scribe’s handwriting in the paragraphs above and below attests a letter size, letter spacing, and line spacing consistent with the majority of the document. The letter size, letter spacing, and line spacing of the emendation is anywhere from 75% - less than 50% that of the paragraphs before and after.

This, then, is the basis of my conclusion. I’m not sure why you are asking me for “accompanying photographic evidence” when you obviously have your own photos. And at present, as you know, I am not permitted to post any extracts of my images of the KEP. But I have given what I consider to be a satisfactory description of the evidence. In my judgment, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion.

I might also note that this analysis is confirmed by others with access to the high-resolution scans. Nevertheless, it is possible there is another interpretation of the evidence that is superior to the one I have offered. If you see the evidence differently, I look forward to your explanation.

Respectfully,

Will