Kevin Graham wrote:
My approach is to start at the beginning, so sue me. And from beginning to near the end the manuscripts are littered with clear evidences for dictation. The dittograph appears at the tail end of one manuscript. If it were located somewhere in the middle, it would be more of a problem for the dictation argument, but as it is there is nothing about the dittograph to overthrow the mountain of evidence for dictation throughout the rest of the manuscript.
I never said there was. I've been willing to grant that dictation accounts for the entire corpus since before this thread began. That's why I started another thread. This thread must be aimed at someone else.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Will's approach was to assert these were copies from the beginning before he even analyzed these texts, because that was the best case scenario for the apologetic position. So he scoured the manuscripts for any possible signs of something that could be considered a "copying error," intentionally leaping over evidences for dictation and dismissing some of them as "secondary emendations." He finally came across this dittograph at the very end of Ms1a, which we had already acknowledged as a copy. Unlike our approach, he decided he would start from the ending, and completely ignore the rest.
So Daniel, why are you beginning at the end if you're an objective scholar with no apologetic presuppositions to validate?
Because (1) I'm under no obligation to follow the chronological composition of a text I text-critically analyze, and (2) I've been willing to grant that dictation could have accounted for the entire collection since I posted my other thread. There's no need to try to prove what I've already said I'm willing to grant.
I've heard of beginning with a conclusion and forcing the evidence to fit that conclusion but you're taking this quite literally in this instance. ;)[/quote]
Kevin Graham wrote:
And that thread will pertain to the dittograph. In the meantime, I expect someone claiming to be an objective expert with no apologetic stake in this matter, to be intellectually honest with the data and offer rational explanations for the numerous evidences I provided in this post. Let's see if you can concede the evidence-based points, as you so demanded of me.
I can concede whatever the evidence dictates.
Kevin Graham wrote:
I see your comprehension is failing you again.
I thought we were going to refrain from insults.
Kevin Graham wrote:
The difference is that I have at least offered a possible explanation for the dittoograph, whereas neither Will nor Hauglid has even acknowledged, let alone addressed the evidences for dictation.
And I have offered a plausible explanation that is more complete than your possible explanation. I'd like to address that.
Kevin Graham wrote:
So no, there is no hypocrisy or comparison here. Whether you like my explanation is irrelevant to the fact that I have in fact offered one.
Now you're debating me about someone else's argument. I'd like to discuss mine.
Kevin Graham wrote:
I put the dittograph on the backburner because all it tells us is that the final paragraph on the last page of one manuscript, was a copy. That's it.
I don't think it's very helpful to pretend I've not made an argument at all.
Kevin Graham wrote:
We all agree to this, so what is left, especially since you already stated that this being a copy has no bearing on whether the rest was dictated. So why are you beating it into the ground as if it were your only salvo?
Because it invalidates your entire premise.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Your theory doesn't work because it presumes the text was dictated by someone reading another source document.
This is circular and begs the question. You've yet to provide a word of evidence that supports the notion that it's problematic to conclude there was a source document.
Kevin Graham wrote:
which is a ridiculous assumption from left field.
It's the conclusion, Kevin. It's not an assumption when it's the termination of a sequence of logical evaluations of evidence.
Kevin Graham wrote:
It seems the only reason you assert it is because it is the only way to account for the dictation evidence while protecting the sanctity of the apologetic "Joseph Smith had nothing to do with these mistranslations" position. Let me guess, the guy dictating these texts was Phelps, right? The historical evidences prove these men were hired scribes, employed by Joseph Smith, to transcribe what he dictated. If anyone was reading off translated text with corresponding Egyptian characters, it would be their Prophet.
You're begging the question again. You're simply asserting these things without bothering to address my evidence. You have to address the evidence, Kevin.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Sigh... I don't care what you do Dan.
Please don't patronize me, Kevin.
Kevin Graham wrote:
I've presented the evidence for dictation, and you can deal with it, dismiss it or manipulate it for your own end.
I've dealt with it. Now it's your turn to deal with my concerns with your evidence.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Ultimately, your arguments will be judged based on their merits and I am happy with that.
So far my arguments have only been judged on whether or not you think they're ridiculous.
Kevin Graham wrote:
And yes, I responded to your thread. Forgive me for spending most of the day creating this thread, which I promised to do three days ago, before responding to yours in Celestial. I should be ashamed of myself, really.
Is this kind of patronization really how you respond to my honest attempt to rebuild this academic bridge?
Kevin Graham wrote:
The difference is that I have acknowledged the dittograph and have the intellectual honesty to say, "I don't know" why it is there.p
Then you cannot presume to assert that your theory is correct. When your argument fails to account for critical data you have to get a new argument.
Kevin Graham wrote:
By contrast, Will and Hauglid are intellectually dishonest apologists who do presentations for FAIR and tell their gullible audience that the critics only assert a dictation scenario, but that they've never seen any evidence to support this. Brian Hauglid is on Youtube saying this and Will said the same thing just a few hours ago. So what do you think of their "text critical" skills and "objectivity" for insisting there is zero evidence for dictation? From where I'm standing, that puts us in a pretty good position, objectively speaking. We've always maintained that the documents represent mostly copied texts with some dictation, whereas they've never once allowed for the possibility for dictation, and hung their so-called "text critical" analysis on this conclusion.
Right now all I'm concerned about is what was behind the dictation or transcription. You don't seem to want to discuss that.
Kevin Graham wrote:
My response is that I do not know.
Then how can you presume to assert to have the better theory?
Kevin Graham wrote:
Why is this so difficult for you to understand or accept?
Because you say that but still seem to think that it's ok for you to just nakedly assert that I'm wrong. Here, I'll show you:
Kevin Graham wrote:
My response is that I do not know.
But previously:
Kevin Graham wrote:
Your theory doesn't work because it presumes the text was dictated by someone reading another source document.
Do you see? Your earlier assertion does not respond to a single word of evidence and fallaciously asserts I'm wrong anyway. Your subsequent claim is that you can't account for the data that my evidence accounts for.
Kevin Graham wrote:
I've never once claimed to know the answer to the dittograph. Not once. It is an anomaly that appears at the tail end of one dictated text, along with several other anomalies uncharacteristic of the whole. I think it is wiser to try interpreting it in light of a dictated text, instead of trying to interpret a dozen evidences for dictation in light is a copied text.
Why would you think it's wiser when it leaves you saying stuff like this:
Kevin Graham wrote:
My response is that I do not know.
Kevin Graham wrote:
The difference is that I have acknowledged the dittograph and have the intellectual honesty to say, "I don't know" why it is there.p
My theory, on the other hand, can explain exactly why the dittograph is there. You reject that a priori and turn around to say you simply think it's wiser to follow your path despite the fact that it is a dead end?
Kevin Graham wrote:
So long as the dictation is coming from someone reading the source document that Will and Hauglid have argued for, correct?
That's what the data supports. You can deal with the data or you can simply assert that it must be wrong because it's what Will and Brian think. One response is academic and the other is not.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Can you tell us how it is reasonable to assume two men would copy down two the same word and write it differently when they are looking at how it is spelled on the mysterious "source document" from which it was allegedly copied? I'm all ears.
It didn't really matter whether or not they spelled it according to the parent text or according to their preferred spelling. As I showed with several examples, spelling was a fluid principle back then, and they often spelled words differently even on the same sheet of paper (I provided you an example of that). You even asserted that two words were written differently because they heard the word and decided to write it how they thought it should be written. Now you incredulously ask how it could ever be possible that they would
read a word and decide to write it how they thought it should be written?
Kevin Graham wrote:
Dan the evidence from this example goes far deeper than a simple variance in spelling. For example, Ms1a says shagreel was the son, and then immediately crosses out son and replaces it with the homonym "sun." Are you going to argue that sun was another way of spelling son in the early 19th century? Please say it ain't so.
That's utterly immaterial. Your argument is that the variant spelling of Shagreel is evidence of dictation. I've shown that it is evidence of nothing.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Yes, and the other scribe didn't, which was the point.
Please don't patronize me, Kevin.
Kevin Graham wrote:
That wasn't the variation I was referring to. I was referring to the variation between the two scribes who were supposed too be "copying" Shagreel from some source document. The more rational explanation as to why one scribe would spell it shag=reel and shag-reel, and another scribe spell it shagreel, is that they weren't looking at it spelled on any document, and they were going by what they assumed the proper spelling was.
No, it's not more likely. I've shown utterly conclusively that the equal signs and the dashes were utterly arbitrary and don't indicate a thing about dictation or transcription.
Kevin Graham wrote:
But the "son <--> sun" correction pretty much makes this a rock solid case of an error via dictation, as I think you would agree.
I didn't see the picture of that one on your post. Can you provide it?
[
Kevin Graham wrote:
Are you seriously misunderstanding the argument this badly?
Not at all.
Kevin Graham wrote:
If he were reading it from a source document there is no reason why it should be spelled three different ways between two scribes. Period.
No, not period. The above is a fallacy called proof by assertion. It's little different from just saying "Nu-uh!" I showed you one word spelled two different ways by the same scribe on the same sheet of paper. I've shown you plenty of evidence that spelling was not a standardized practice in the 19th century.
Kevin Graham wrote:
The rest of your response to this doesn't address the point and I think you will agree that writing "son" instead of "sun" is a textbook example of transcription error via dictation. I should have included that in this example, and I will add edit it to include it, probably tomorrow.
I'll be happy to look at it then.
Kevin Graham wrote:
This is what the text says. “Onitah, one of the xxxxxx royal descent directly”. OK, I can see that it might be an adjective that was crossed out, and so it is plausibly a secondary emendation. But I suspect further analysis of the color copies will reveal what the word was, and then we can determine if it was anomalous or not.
We will wait and see, then.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Will says stuff like this all the time, and Will has proven he cannot be trusted, so this is a judgment call.
Has Brent addressed Will's claim anywhere else since this thread?
Kevin Graham wrote:
Besides, what good is a four year old assertion that you refuse to substantiate?
I didn't make the claim, so I'm not responsible for substantiating it. Based on my own understanding of ink properties, however, It would seem the ink in the upstroke of the /h/ in "the" would have interrupted the drying ink pooling near the borders of the bottom of the parenthesis had it been secondary. The bottom of the parenthesis maintains its integrity and the pooling of the ink along the border of the stroke shows no inconsistencies or signs of secondary contact.
Kevin Graham wrote:
We've never seen any of his experts come forward and explain their findings with evidence. And besides, I've seen how his "text-critic" expert has made similar arguments and lost the debate against Brent Metcalfe.
But you claimed that this thread you linked to was a debate that Brent won hands down. That's not what I saw, and now you're claiming that the conclusion of the debate actually just hinges on the accuracy of a statement Will made and Brent never responded to? Why should I believe that this "text-critic" lost this other debate?
Kevin Graham wrote:
It all comes down to credibility for me.
That's not objective.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Hauglid and Gee have lied too many times. We know Brent is never going to get his hands on the documents to allow independent experts to analyze them, so the apologists will always be able to claim whatever the hell they want when it comes to the "analyses" that take place behind closed doors at BYU. Nothing will change that.
Now the whole game is rigged? You originally claimed this about that thread:
Quote:
Brent Metcalfe responded to this with what I believe was conclusive text-critical evidence that the emendation was in transition, and not secondary.
I honestly didn't see a word of evidence from Brent. It seemed he just asked Brian to post a good photo of the letters. Did you mean to link to another page of that thread?
Kevin Graham wrote:
Brent was never talking to Will to begin with, from what I remember. He was debating Brian, and Brian is the one who didn't respond to Brent's last post. I don't expect you to be convinced, but I provided this thread so people from all corners can be exposed to what has been debated. People can make their own judgments about the photo arguments presented by Brent and Will. In my view Brent won that particular debate, and Will's attempt to manipulate photos to suit his apologetic goal wasn't impressive.
So you just have a priori decided that Will was lying and thus Brent won?
Kevin Graham wrote:
You're avoiding the point again, which is the fact that two scribes were supposedly copying these things down from a source document. Were they copying from two different source documents? Variant spellings from dictation are expected, but not from direct copies of something as important as a translation of scripture.
And I showed you that the exact same thing happened between Smith's description of Kiah ah broam, Phelps' GAEL transcription of it, and the actual Abraham narrative. Your claim that we should not expect variant spellings from direct copies of something as important as scripture is not only a guess, but has simply been proven false. It happened with "high priest" and it also happened with "Haran" in Ab2. It can be academic to argue that something is not logical, but to insist that something is not logical after I've shown you conclusive evidence that it happened repeatedly in the very texts we're questioning is quite clearly not. Engage the evidence, Kevin.
Kevin Graham wrote:
In the case of one word being scratched out, yes. But in the case of four words being scratched out, the likelihhod that this sentence would have remaind coherent with these deleted words, is less likely. Here is the example: "“and also of Noah, his father, xx xx xxx xxxx who blessed him”
There's quite a difference between legitimate words between a definite article and its noun and legitimate words between a noun and its relative pronoun. You're fudging quite a bit here.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Those words that were scratched out - I just confirmed with Brent - were "for in his days."
Please provide an image where I can confirm myself what they say.
Kevin Graham wrote:
So you are saying the text was originally, "and also of Noah, his father,
for in his days who blessed him” and that this makes perfect sense to you? Brent has the color photos and so he does a better job of describing the evidence for this passage than I do. I recommend looking it over here:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208008754I'd like to be able to confirm for myself, and there's no photo on that thread.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Not in the case of simultaneous copying from the same document.
It doesn't matter where it's coming from, Kevin. Spelling propensities are spelling propensities.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Spelling differences represent strong evidence against this, which means you need to alter your theory to involve two different source documents, one for each scribe, to diffuse the spelling errors. By doing this you can just claim the two source documents contained those errors as well, which is exactly how Hauglid and Schryver have dealt with it. In which case, you then have to explain what the hell these guys were doing making so many friggin copies of error-ridden texts. And why the Church felt it important to guard and preserve these documents, but not the sacred original manuscripts from which these documents allegedly derive. We have the original and printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, so why is it so hard to believe the Church saved the original/printers manuscripts for other scriptues as well?
You're still arguing from a presentistic premise. I've provided plenty of evidence to substantiate that.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Again, transcription can be via dictation or copying. The way you use the word makes your point ambiguous.
In textual criticism transcription is copying from one text to another. I've explained this before and have even linked to the standard publications on textual criticism. You now know exactly what I mean when I, as a textual critic, say transcription.
Kevin Graham wrote:
If by transcription you mean "copied", then obviously you'll need two different source documents which contain the two different renderings of these words. Saying these guys were paid to copy texts and yet had the liberty to spell them any way they wished, isn't a very compelling argument. It defeats the purpose.
I've already shown you where a scribe spelled the same proper name two different ways on the same sheet of paper. You can't assert that we can't think it happened when I've shown you absolutely conclusive proof that it did actually happen.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Because that defeats the purpose of copying!!
No it doesn't. The text is still very much coherent.
Kevin Graham wrote:
It wasn''t their job to reinvent the text. It was their job to either transcribe via dictation or copy a text as it appeared on a preexistent document. Only in a dictation scenario would it be reasonable to expect variant spellings like these, especially so many in such a short document.
I refer you again to the word "Hara/on" on page 4 of Ab2. That's proof, Kevin, not evidence. It happened. You presentistic assumption is wrong.
Kevin Graham wrote:
Your theory presents more problems than it solves in my view.
But you cannot name any.
Kevin Graham wrote:
But given your recent history, I take it that agreeing to disagree isn't something you're willing to do?
Not when you've openly stated that your theory simply cannot account for the dittograph. You've already admitted that your argument is flawed, and you're unwilling and unable to explain why my argument is flawed. The only thing left for you to do is (1) confront my theory and present a better one of your own or (2) concede.
Kevin Graham wrote:
PS: Some keys on this computer have a tendency to "stick" so forgive the typos.
No problem. It happens to me sometimes too.