tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post8024159098114839877..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: More on the Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers: Recent Explorations Based on Comments at InterpreterJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54655139960125439292019-12-20T15:23:55.015-06:002019-12-20T15:23:55.015-06:00Regarding the "overwriting," I probably ...Regarding the "overwriting," I probably misunderstood and thought you were talking about writing over a letter as an emendation or repeat stroke, but I think you mean an existing part of the line below, where a descending loop approaches or makes contact with the line below, is that right? In Manuscript A, that first line looks very much like what I would expect for a line written initially, followed by a second line written below it. The second "of" has an unusually deep "f" and when the following line is there, the beginning of the long cross stroke for a "t" makes contact with that deep descending portion of the "f" in way that looks natural and is consistent with the contact that occurs elsewhere on this page, where the descending portions of letter like "f", "g" and "p" can contact letters in the following line. That doesn't tell us that the line above came after the line below. Further, in line below the header line, the emendation of "mine" added above the line misses the existing letters above it, coming close as one would expect but not colliding, and the header line does not show signs of having been adjusted to avoid collision.<br /><br />This looks like a very natural case of the first line being written first, and it's that way in both documents. Both headers are, relative to their respective documents, in the same ink and with the same ink flow, use similar spacing as the rest of the writing, are in the same handwriting, and have the same emendations. All very unlike what you would expect if these were done in a different setting or later time. And as explained, even if the header came later, as you propose, it does not erase or change the intent of the authors in providing this header or annotation to the document. It tells us something. If not am indication of the purpose of the document or its relationship to other documents, then what?Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86286968771510651412019-12-20T07:49:36.021-06:002019-12-20T07:49:36.021-06:00Explaining the apparent meaning of a document and ...Explaining the apparent meaning of a document and showing how it relates to other documents is not "muddying the water," it's seeking to understand matters that have long been muddy and made muddier with bad assumptions. These documents have been assumed to represent Joseph dictating live scripture interpreted from characters at the left -- but textual evidence shows this is not likely to be the case. Other evidence suggests the purpose was not creating new scripture, but copying old to create new entries for the fifth degree, second part in the GAEL. A reply of "that's just muddying the waters, a Nibley tactic! Bad!" is not a substantial reply. No more than me saying, "that's just typical anti-Mormon deception" or something similar. If the KEP matters, let's seek to understand what was being done and why. If my proposals are wrong -- if I'm missing key overstrikes that change everything, for example -- please point them out accurately and explain your point of view. Data, logic, and facts should be valued more than assertions and insults. True for both sides of the debate, of course. But I'm trying. I may be wrong, but I'm trying, and welcome your reasoned response. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47220128542718844782019-12-20T07:42:45.182-06:002019-12-20T07:42:45.182-06:00I'm looking closely at Manuscript A and can...I'm looking closely at <a href="https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-manuscript-circa-july-circa-november-1835-a-abraham-14-26/1" rel="nofollow">Manuscript A</a> and can't make sense of what you are saying. What evidence do you see of overwriting? Can't make sense of what you are saying -- sorry if I'm missing something. <br /><br />Insisting that people write things for some reason is not being sanctimonious. The question is what is the reason? Do you have a better explanation for the leading statement on this page? It's not from the text they are copying, not related to the story, so it must be related to something else, and those words help us figure out a reasonable candidate for the something else. If you are going to say we can ignore the apparent intent of the authors because you think the header was written later, then what's a header supposed to mean? Why would it matter if they wrote that header as a reminder or annotation later? Why? Sorry, I'd like to understand your hypothesis and don't mean to be "sanctimonious," I just can't figure out why we have to ignore apparent meaning because an alleged overwriting of an "f" or two makes you think that header came later. Why would that even matter if true? If the header on any manuscript came a day after the text, does it's apparent meaning evaporate? I must be missing something big here, of course, so help me out. I don't see what you see on the figure -- can you explain? And I can't see why it should lead us to disregard the header. Sorry!Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31374176723714856302019-12-19T14:10:15.078-06:002019-12-19T14:10:15.078-06:00I find it interesting that you complain about a co...I find it interesting that you complain about a common Mormon apologetic tactic in defending obvious inconsistencies in the Mormon narrative—muddy the water until nothing can be known for certain and try to leave it at that. This was a favorite tactic of Hugh Nibley.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15377167976347343422019-12-19T13:58:20.737-06:002019-12-19T13:58:20.737-06:00Please refer to Manuscript A. Note the overwriting...Please refer to Manuscript A. Note the overwriting present on the second “f” of the word “fifth” and the “f” of the second “of.” They are written over the text below them—therefore added after the text below them. <br /><br /><br />“If a reference to a specific part and degree matching a key section of the GAEL, placed at the very top of a manuscript, has no bearing on the meaning of a document, then <i>does can anything an author writes tell us anything about the meaning of their document</i>?”<br /><br />Look who’s become sanctimonious about text and signs having a relationship. Apparently they can only have associated meaning if it fits your narrative. At least <i>try</i> to be consistent in the application of your own rules. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-73676714165948624762019-12-18T19:46:57.507-06:002019-12-18T19:46:57.507-06:00Obvious? Really? The spacing between that first li...Obvious? Really? The spacing between that first line and the other lines is consistent with the rest of each document, and does not look like it was crammed in as an afterthought. This header occurs at the top of both documents. In both, it has the same ink, same ink flow, same handwriting, and exactly the same emendations (correcting "first" to "second" after "part" had been written), which would be highly unlikely if it were an afterthought or done in some later session. <br /><br />But even if you are right, titles, headers, and even annotations anywhere in a document don't have to be the first thing written or even present in the first writing session to serve important roles in telling us what the authors thought and intended. Is it really "folly" to think that there is an important meaning in that top line, whether it was added first or later? Because it was indisputably added by each of the two scribes to both documents in the same location. They meant something. <br /><br />If a reference to a specific part and degree matching a key section of the GAEL, placed at the very top of a manuscript, has no bearing on the meaning of a document, then does can anything an author writes tell us anything about the meaning of their document? I sure hope so!Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-87782766439892123252019-12-17T13:46:09.548-06:002019-12-17T13:46:09.548-06:00“Beginning at this part of the text and using a he...“Beginning at this part of the text and using a header of some kind but not a proper title suggests that the twin manuscripts are intended as a continuation of what Phelps had begun, not as a separate or independent work.”<br /><br />In looking at manuscripts B and A, it’s pretty obvious that “sign of the fifth degree of the second part” was added after the other text was already on the page. This is especially obvious in manuscript A. It’s possible that the reference was added in a completely different session and/or context than the original text. To assume it has bearing on the text that was produced below it is folly. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com