The KEPA Manuscripts as Oral Dictation Transcripts

[_Paul Osborne]

Each scribe makes the same precise mistakes as one would expect in a dictation scenario.

Please, do you have a count on how many mistakes strengthen your argument for the dictation process? Better yet, have you a bulleted list of these errors whereby each one can be individually weighed in the balance?

It makes no sense to employ two different scribes to make an exact copy of an error ridden maunscript.

The mere idea of just one scribe making an exact copy of an error-ridden manuscript does nothing to advance the cause of improvement.

Nothing like this took place with the Book of Mormon translation.

Well, that’s irrelevant because we are dealing with two difference animals all together. The Book of Mormon translation is like an apple while the Book of Abraham translation is an orange. One has an alphabet & grammar while the other does not. The process by which these books came about were different in many ways.

Paul O

[_dartagnan]

Let me kinda provide a picture for what I think happened. Here is how the two manuscripts read, more or less:




At the point where Joseph Smith realizes he provided an erroneous translation, the two scribes were at different points in their transcription process. Parrish, as the more experienced scribe, was probably faster transcriber. He was keeping pace with what Joseph Smith was saying as he was saying it.

Williams, however, was slower and trying to keep pace. At the point where Joseph Smith says "hmmm" (or whatever he did you let the scribes know to hold up), Williams was at the word "alter," precisely where the line starts to drift upwards. He was probably trying write the rest of the sentence while at the same time, looking over to the Prophet to see what the problem was.

At this point Joseph tells them to replace the last phrase with "commencement of this record."

Since Parrish had already written the error, he simply had it stricken out and then continued with the rest. His correction was clearly made in transition so it could not have been a subsequent emendation.

Since Williams had left a huge gap that would separate this sentence with the one that would appear below it, he decided to simply insert the corrected translation into the gap.

[_Paul Osborne]

Each scribe makes the same precise mistakes as one would expect in a dictation scenario.

Please, do you have a count on how many mistakes strengthen your argument for the dictation process? Better yet, have you a bulleted list of these errors whereby each one can be individually weighed in the balance?

Oh, never mind. Looking ahead I see you listed 7 of them. Good job. You're going to back Will into a corner, Kevin. I'm behind on this thread; perhaps I can contribute something nonetheless. I need to get caught up.

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

Finally – I’m caught up! You guys have made a lot of points and the discussion has been fruitful inasmuch as we all just want to know the truth.

I’d like to once again express my idea of how verse 12 came into play. I’ve carefully read all your comments and have an open mind. It’s been pointed out by a few participants in this thread that even if the proposed insertion was penciled in later on it doesn’t prove that the manuscript was a copy rather than a dictated original. Even if the phrase in question was later amended it only goes to show that the manuscript was important and that the scribe (Williams) who was a member of the First Presidency dutifully set his hand to the record as did the other brethren who penned the rest of the KEP. Here is how I see it as written in my website:

Now we come to an interesting point where we can see how actual circumstances played out as the scribes reacted to the dictation of the prophet during a live performance of revelation from Joseph Smith. This is the point where the story itself mentions Facsimile No. 1, as being part of the document. Bear in mind, that the translated hieroglyphs in the manuscript are from the papyrus fragment that was cut from Facsimile No. 1. Joseph dictated and the scribes wrote, but something happened to cause a miscommunication while both scribes interpreted the prophet's gestures and speech. The following clip is from Williams:

"upon this altar, and that you may have a knowl-

edge of this altar I will refer you to the representation that is at the

commencement of this record

It was made after the form of a bedsted such as was had"



Note carefully how the handwriting of the truncated 3rd line is sandwiched in-between two lines to fill in a gap. Here is my theory of what happened:

The 1st line is straight and the first half of the second line starts out fair enough, but then something happens to the attention of Williams and he takes his eyes off the manuscript while he continues to write nearly crashing into the line above before coming to a halt with the word, "the". Obviously something has happened to distract the scribe and call his attention to something else in the room. The writing in the 2nd line changes its angle with the phrase, "I will refer you to the representation that is at the"; and this is when it appears the writer was looking at something else other than just the manuscript. I get the impression the wayward handwriting is due to Joseph Smith using the original Facsimile No.1 fragment as a visual aid and was calling attention to it, perhaps even handling it as he spoke. Therefore, as the prophet received revelation he may have lifted the papyri fragment off the table and displayed it while saying, "I will refer you to the representation that is at the" , and this caused Williams to take his eyes off the paper and inadvertently change the angle of writing, nearly crashing into the line above. It may even be that the very next line (3rd) is a continuation of the writing going awry, which says, "commencement of this record" . The bottom line (4th) indicates correction in which the angle of writing was reset. It seems like Williams lost track of his writing when looking at the papyrus of the original Facsimile No. 1. The phrase "commencement of this record" was written while receiving direct instruction from the prophet.

Now let's examine what happened to Warren Parrish as he was writing in his manuscript at the exact same time. I think he was a bit confused at what he was suppose to write. Let's see how he reacted to the prophet's dictation when distracted with a direct reference to the picture on the papyrus:


"[know-] ledge of this altar, I will refer you to the

representation, that is lying before you (red writing is crossed out)

at the commencement of this record"



Notice how Parrish alluded to the table in his sentence! He wasn't suppose to do that because the table in which the papyri was laying on was not part of the actual story. It seems to me that after the prophet said, "I will refer you to the representation" , he may have paused and then stopped translating, calling for the attention of the scribes to the table when he said, "that is laying before you" . Parrish simply kept writing but Williams caught the cue and stopped writing.

So, does my observation merit any consideration as a plausible explanation for what may have really happened during a dictation process? It’s not like I was actually there to see it played out but I’ve imagined in my head what may have actually happened. Sometimes you have to just let your imagination run wild.

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

#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”

Even with my wild imagination I can’t figure why the scribes would want to copy a crossed out word from an original source document. Why perpetuate an error that was not to have place in the final draft? It just doesn’t make sense for two scribes to copy down a condemned word in order to maintain an exact replicated version of the rough draft. Had the scribes been making copies they would have ignored the crossed out word in order to purify the document and ready it for the press.

Therefore, it seems more likely that in the dictation process the prophet gave the signal to scratch the word from his sentence. I have no idea how this kind of dictation signal is given whereunto both scribes would catch it in perfect unison.

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

#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?

It seems reasonable to me that a copyist wouldn’t take the liberty to add a hyphen to a foreign word unless he was under the impression that this was to serve as a correction. But we see that the hyphen was not to be inducted into the final draft of chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham . It’s clear to me that in this instance President Williams liked to use hyphens in order to sound out foreign names while Parrish preferred otherwise. The difference between the two scribes is a reflection of how they write during dictation rather than how they copy from another work. Had they been making copies, the spelling of names would have been the same.

Therefore it makes better sense to suppose that Williams' hyphens were employed during dictation rather than copying.

Paul O

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

I had intended to post a response tonight, but playing Rock Band (released today) with my son took priority.

Time permitting (read: not a "promise"), I'll offer a few comments tomorrow.

Cheers,

</brent>

[_Paul Osborne]

This ink pattern is consistent with fresh ink dragging older ink in the direction of the new stroke. In short, the "h" was written after the curved stroke. (I've personally replicated this ink pattern several times using a quill pen.

Brent, you deserve praise for making the effort to study the effects of ink flow. However, the experiment is not scientific and is therefore invalid – although you probably already know this. There are several factors that must be taken into consideration in order to simulate the conditions whereby President Williams was transcribing. I have to assume you were working in what might be considered design conditions within a modern environment.

The following conditions at the transcription event would have to be met in order to validate the conclusion of such an experiment:

1. Exact composition of the ink – same make
2. Exact composition of the paper – same stalk
3. Same type of quill
4. Same ambient conditions, includes humidity and temperature. We have no idea what the ambient conditions were during the transcription process. It may have been 95 deg or 55 or, even colder! Was it a humid day or a dry one? What was the temperature of the ink when it was employed? We just don’t know what kind of conditions existed at the time the transcription was made.

Paul O

[_William Schryver]

Paul:

Even with my wild imagination I can’t figure why the scribes would want to copy a crossed out word from an original source document. Why perpetuate an error that was not to have place in the final draft? It just doesn’t make sense for two scribes to copy down a condemned word in order to maintain an exact replicated version of the rough draft.

This is, of course, an extremely valid point you make. I have yet to hear what I would consider a satisfactory explanation for this from anyone championing the theory of copying. In fact, the only explanation I have heard offered is one that suggests the possibility that the scribes were making “proof” copies – in other words, exact copies of an original document. Personally, I can’t envision a purpose in doing something like that – but I don’t reject it entirely as a possibility.

It seems reasonable to me that a copyist wouldn’t take the liberty to add a hyphen to a foreign word unless he was under the impression that this was to serve as a correction.

Again, I agree that this is valid observation.

Attention! Exposure of Important Secret Alert!
I completely agree that there are persuasive indications that these documents are simultaneous transcripts of an oral dictation. Nevertheless, there are what I consider to be elements of the manuscripts that seem problematic within the dictation context. This thread is intended to permit me to present the various “problematic” elements to the consideration of those who are advocates of the dictation theory and invite them to explain these things within the dictation scenario. To the extent that can be done, I will be comfortable in formally adopting that explanation as my own.

You know, Paul, I have to say that, as time as gone on, I find myself moving closer to what I understand your views to be. Make no mistake, there are still things with which I either don’t agree with you, or that I don’t understand, but my views on this question have certainly evolved over the course of the past 18 months. My interview and discussions with Sam Brown have also influenced the way I look at these things. Although he didn’t speak specifically to the questions we’re discussing in this thread, Sam’s address at the recent Sunstone conference was enlightening on many levels. I hope to be able to include several excerpts from his interview in my upcoming “documentary” on this topic. He takes a somewhat unconventional stance on these questions, much like you. But I am very attracted to his essential premise that the Egyptian papyri may have been little more than “relics” that served to focus Joseph Smith and prepare him for the reception of a new species of revelation. Of course, this is not a theory that can be easily swallowed by many of the unbending literalists among us, but I’m inclined to believe there may be something to it.

Attention! Key Secret Alert!
You see, I like to test all the possible answers and see how they withstand the adversarial process inherent in an online message board environment – hence this thread. Some people have really struggled to understand me because of the way I test ideas on these message boards, but I don’t really hold it against them. Their misunderstandings are . . . well, understandable. Even the jerks like Kevin Graham! (<grin>; <tongue-in-cheek>) It’s all part and parcel of this rough and tumble world of online forums. You either get thick skin or you get out.

Anyway Paul, I hope you’ll continue to participate. I’ve appreciated your comments so far . . .


Brent:

I had intended to post a response tonight, but playing Rock Band (released today) with my son took priority.

It is comforting to know that your priorities are properly aligned. I hear Rock Band is supposed to be fun, though I don't really know anything about it. Is it like Guitar Hero? I’ve played that before.

Time permitting (read: not a "promise"), I'll offer a few comments tomorrow.

No hurry. It’s the holidays. I’m taking the day off today and I’m going to fire up my tractor and scoop horse**** (this is the celestial forum!) out of my horse barn. Now, that may not sound like fun to you city folk, but you should try it sometime. There ain’t nothin’ like runnin’ the controls to a powerful front loader and using it to artfully and skillfully dump horse manure in your garden and on your pastures. It gives me goosebumps just thinking about it . . . ;-)

[_Dr. Shades]

There ain’t nothin’ like runnin’ the controls to a powerful front loader and using it to artfully and skillfully dump horse manure in your garden and on your pastures. It gives me goosebumps just thinking about it . . . ;-)

If I ever get goosebumps over the prospect of dumping horse manure, will somebody please shoot me?