Royal Skousen collected and examined the existing fragments of the "original" manuscript of the Book of Mormon to produce a critical text. The first volume of Skousen's work, The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text, was published in 2001 by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). Skousen found that there were three principal scribes. Scribe 1, Oliver Cowdery, wrote the bulk of the text. Scribe 2, whose identity is unknown, added 1 Nephi 3:7 to 4:14 and 1 Nephi 12:9 to 16:1. Scribe 3, also unknown, added 1 Nephi 4:20 to 12:8 (according to Mormon scholars, the person designated as Scribe 3 also recorded D&C 56, dated June 1831, in Kirtland, Ohio). Joseph Smith added 28 words in Alma 45:22. Skousen developed a system of symbols to indicate what the scribe was doing while writing the text (striking out words, erasing, overwriting, etc.). Sometimes a scribe would attempt to erase a misspelled letter, but more typically the correct letter would simply be written over the incorrect letter. I will not attempt to reproduce Skousen's symbols. The primary symbol that I will use is an equals sign. For example, "mot=not" indicates that the incorrect letter "m" was replaced by "n" to produce the word "not." A letter or word enclosed between two parentheses, e.g. (the), will indicate that the letter or word was deleted. I will also provide a page and line reference (e.g., 245:9, which indicates page 245, line 9 in Skousen's work).
In an article entitled "Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript," Skousen asserts that the evidence in the original manuscript supports claims that Joseph Smith dictated the text and does "not support theories that Joseph Smith composed the text himself or that he took the text from some other source" (Skousen 1997, 61). Skousen concentrates on instances of spelling errors that can be interpreted as mishearing a spoken word, for example, hearing "an" as "and," or "reed" as "weed," or "beat" as "meet," or "them" (pronounced as unstressed "em") as "him." Skousen writes: "Errors in the original manuscript (O) are based on the scribe mishearing what Joseph Smith dictated rather then visually misreading while copying from another manuscript" (Skousen 1997, 67). However, the examples used by Skousen do not force us to this conclusion. Certainly, in the first two examples the errors could as easily be the result of visual misreading as mishearing. In the third example, either "meet" or "beat" fits the context of the sentence, which reads "for it was they who did beat the Lamanites." Perhaps Oliver Cowdery didn't mishear the word but simply decided to change it. In the first him/them example, the word "him" occurs twice in the text before the incorrect occurrence; therefore, Oliver could simply have become confused while looking back and forth between an original text and his copy. In the second him/them example, it may be that Oliver incorrectly anticipated what the next word was going to be.
On the other hand, Skousen gives examples of changes made in the printer's manuscript (P), which he claims are due to visual misreading of the original manuscript (O) rather than mishearing. In one sentence, Oliver wrote "also" in P rather than "always" in O. In a second passage, he wrote "many" in P rather than "among" in O, and in a third he misread "pressing" written by scribe 3 in O and wrote "feeling" in P. If Oliver could misread "always" as "also" and "among" as "many," he could certainly also misread "an" as "and" and "reed" as "weed." Skousen's explanation for the pressing/feeling example is especially interesting. He says that scribe 3's "p" looks like an "f" and his elongated "s" looks like an "l." But there are literally hundreds of examples of this type of error in the original manuscript, none of which are ever mentioned by Skousen. For example, in the original manuscript Oliver wrote an "f" for "p" while writing the word "peace" (385:13), and he wrote "f" for the second "p" in "People" (414:4). Even scribe 3 made this mistake, writing "f" for "p" in "upon" (98:8) and in the word "apostles" (107:6). In attempting to write the word "pass," scribe 3 first wrote "pals" but then changed the "l" to an elongated "s" (87:41). If Skousen accepts this type of example as proof of copying errors in the printer's manuscript, why does he not accept the evidence of copying in the original manuscript? In the remainder of this paper, I will document many of the errors in the Book of Mormon manuscript, which provide clear evidence that the manuscript was copied rather than dictated. Since Oliver Cowdery wrote the bulk of the original manuscript, I will concentrate on him first. The following lists are not meant to be exhaustive.
Scribe 3 made many of the same types of errors as scribes 1 and 2.
he Spake unto me consenning=conserning the elders of the Jews (74:5)
that I was truly that laban whon=whom I had (had) Slew (74:13)
he spake unto me menny times consenning=conserning the elders Of the Jews (74:15)
that i spake with t(h)=hin=him that if he would harken (75:31)
when Zorun=Zorum had made an oath Um=Unto us (76:52-53)
I know of a surity that the bord=lord (t)hath commanded (78:28)
can not be ritten uppon there=these plates for I desire (81:31)
that Might rais (u)up seed unto the lord in the lord (in the land) of promise (82:48)
unto the land of jerusalem and no(t)w i mphi=nephi being grievd for the hardmess of their harts (83:15-16)
getherd to geather all manner of seeds of erery=every king [kind] (87:27)
i have seen a vission and hehold=behold becaus of the thing (87:32)
i also beheld a Strait and mrrough=narrough path which came (90:27)
that they might oftain=obtain the path which led (90:32)
great mist of darkness im=insomuch that they wt(h)=which had (90:37)
i beheld o(f)thers pressing forward (90:40)
mocking and poim=pointing their fingers towards those (92:1)
to proseed with mim=mine (c) acount i must speak m=somewhat of (95:13)
made an End of Speaking the words of his drean=dream and also of (95:16)
he also spake conserning the frophets=prophets how great a number (96:28)
that they had s(t)lain the masiah (97:51)
that we should be scattered ufpon=uppon all the fase (of) of the earth (98:8)
the (corese) course of the lord is one eterm=eternal round (99:41)
and deny them mo=not for it came to pass (100:49)
the lord (t)was able to mahe=make them ko=known unto me (100:51)
a mountain which i (m)e=never (before) had before seen (101:2)
and the wthitemess [whiteness] there of did exceed the whiteness (102:26)
Mother of god after the monner=manner of the flesh (104:1)
beheld the virgin agaim=again bearrng=bearing a child in her arns=arms (104:6-7)
that i saw them m=not & it a=came to pass that (105:39)
to fight against the afostels=apostels of the la(b)mb for thus ware the twelue=twelve cald (107:6-7)
behold the world and the wisdon=wisdom there of (107:12)
after i saw there=these things i saw the vaper of (the earrh=earth) darkness that it(s) past from the fase of the earth (109:44)
& I looked & bebeld=beheld three generations did pass away (110:10)
& laadeth=leadeth then=them away into broad Roads (111:28)
Other errors made my Scribe 3:
for they Supposd is=it was laban and that he had slain Me (74:20)
might not n=know consem=conserning our flight (76:50)
my Mother complaind against my father and is=it had came to pass that (77:13)
but had tarried an=at jerusalem (77:17)
the thing which the lord hath commander=commanded them (78:33)
my fether=father lehi took the records (78:38)
that we could preserse=preserve the commandments (80:18)
the lord commanded him that i (l)ehi=nephi and my brethren (82:50)
i say unto you that if (h)ye will return unto jerusalem (84:42)
O lord according to my faith which is in (me) thee wilt thou (86:2)
and it came to pals=pass that (87:41)
after that i had truve(d)ed=traveledror=for the space (for) of menny (88:44)
many ware lost from (My view) his view (92:16)
as many as heded them had (to fall in their) fallen away and (93:22)
plates uppon which i make a fill=full account (94:43)
a wise purpou=purpos in him wt(h)=which purlos=purpos i n=know Not (95:5)
and this=thus it is amen (95:9)
that accont=according to the one=own due time of the lord they should reture=return again (95:20-21)
isreel=israel should be grafted in or come to the Re=knowledge of the true masiah their lord and their redemer (98:13-14)
if it so be that they repend=repent and come unto him (99:36)
that my father had sees=seen and believing that (100:50)
i desire to be hold (to) tre=the things which my father saw (101:5)
which my father sad=had seen=sees (t) was the wore=word of god (104:20)
they ware in a large and shesious=spesious bilding (107:9)
that i saw a wist=mist of darkness on the fase of the land (108:33)
the lam of god desending out of heven & (t)he came down & t(h)=he shewd (it unto them) himself unto them (b) & i also saw (109:48-49)
they are righteous forever for (of)because of their fa(d)ith in the lamb (110:8)
their garments where [sic] white even like unto the lumb=lamb of God (110:12)
Gethered to gether & the(se) Angel(s) said unto me (110:18)
the large & specious Building which thei(r)=thy father saw is (111:30)
yea ev(e)en the sword if=of the Justice of the Eternal God (111:33)
& saw the People of the seet=seed of my Brethren (111:44)
These errors indicate clearly that the scribes were misreading rather than mishearing the text. The errors often involve pairs of letters that are formed similarly when written but are pronounced differently when spoken. Even Skousen himself often had difficulty determining which of two letters a scribe had written. Nor can the errors be dismissed due to the fact that the scribes were not very good spellers, because they often misspelled words which they clearly knew how to spell. Also, these errors were corrected, so if the scribes used the spelling which they thought was correct, how did they know that the spelling needed to be corrected and how it should be corrected? Joseph Smith surely didn't spell out every word for the scribes as the translation appeared in the interpreters. Furthermore, many of the errors result in nonsense words or render nonsensical the meaning of the sentence in which they occur. It is apparent that the scribes were copying an unfamiliar hand and that their task produced confusion and tedium. Deciphering the original text and constantly looking back and forth between the original and the copy for long periods of time made them prone to committing copying errors, mistaking one letter for another. And, the mechanical and tedious nature of the task, which impaired their ability to concentrate, led them to make even nonsensical errors. There may also be other contributing factors that we are not aware of, such as the condition of the manuscript that was being copied, the lighting in the room where the scribes worked, and distractions, such as conversations that may have been going on while the scribe worked.
Can Mormon scholars devise a new theory to accommodate the evidence from the Book of Mormon manuscript? In doing so, they will have to give attention to certain facts. Joseph Smith did not obtain possession of the plates until September 1827, and he then moved to Harmony, Pennsylvania. Martin Harris acted as Joseph Smith's scribe from 12 April to 14 June 1828. In July, Joseph learned that the 116 pages of manuscript that Harris had been allowed to take home had disappeared, and they were never recovered. Oliver Cowdery did not start his service as scribe until April 1829. It might have been possible for Joseph to translate the Book of Mormon between July 1828 and April 1829 and then give his text to scribes to copy. But more annoying details intrude. Oliver Cowdery was granted the gift of translating, which was then revoked, in April 1829 (D&C 8 & 9). In May 1829 Joseph Smith was given a solution for the problem of the lost Harris manuscript (D&C 10). Oliver Cowdery also stated that he had written most of the Book of Mormon as dictated by Joseph Smith. It appears then that Joseph could not have produced a translation before April 1829, which Oliver and the other scribes merely copied, and if he had, we must ask why Joseph and Oliver would lie about how they had produced the manuscript.
It cannot be doubted that there was an extant manuscript that Joseph Smith's scribes copied. The simplest explanation is one that was proposed in the nineteenth century: Joseph Smith obtained the manuscript of a story written by Solomon Spalding, which was revised and printed as the Book of Mormon.
Since this article was posted, several people have suggested - without doing any research or presenting any evidence - that the examples that I have listed are simply cases of the scribes replacing a malformed letter with a better attempt at forming the intended letter. In other words, the problem is one of faulty penmanship. This explanation sounds reasonable, but it is not confirmed by the evidence.
As I stated at the beginning of this article, Royal Skousen distinguished between different cases. When he was able to determine the original letter that a scribe wrote and the letter that replaced it, Skousen used one set of symbols, which he explained as "x has been overwritten by y." When he was uncertain what letter a scribe had written, Skousen used another set of symbols, which he explained as "the text may be x or y, with x preferred or intended." Skousen also developed symbols to indicate when a letter was erased or aborted, when a letter was overwritten by the same letter, when a letter is missing a stroke or has an extra stroke, and when a letter is illegible. All of the examples that I have listed fall into two categories: those cases where Skousen was able to determine the original and replacement letters and those cases where a letter was erased. If the critics are right, my examples should fall in the other categories. We would expect Skousen to indicate that he was uncertain what letter a scribe had written, because it was malformed, or that the letter was overwritten by the same letter, or that the letter was missing a stroke or had an extra stroke. If Skousen believed that the errors that I have listed were merely cases of a scribe correcting faulty penmanship, he certainly had the means to indicate this. But, on the contrary, Skousen seems to be clear that the scribes wrote one letter and then replaced it with a completely different letter.
In his facsimile, Skousen provides photographs of three complete pages from the Book of Mormon manuscript. The third page is completely in the handwriting of scribe 3. The first two pages show transitions from the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery to the handwriting of scribe 2 or vice versa. Unfortunately, the major portion of each of the first two pages is in the handwriting of scribe 2, while those parts in Oliver's handwriting are fainter and much more difficult to read. The book Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Parry, Peterson, and Welch, 2002, 10) provides a much more legible photograph of the "Testimony of Three Witnesses" in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. Admittedly, the photographs are less than ideal, and I had only a handheld magnifying glass to aid me, but I was nonetheless able to glean some information. There are resemblances between the ways in which Oliver forms his "r," "n," and "v." However, the photographs do not show any instances in which Oliver tried to correct his penmanship by forming any of these letters more perfectly, except for two instances where Oliver overwrote an "r" with the same letter. On the other hand, Oliver's "r" does not look like his "s." Also, Oliver's "p" is clearly distinguishable from his "f." Furthermore, I cannot see any problem in distinguishing Oliver's a, o, and e, or his b, h, and k, or his m and n.
Scribe 2's "r" is generally elevated with a square top, and it does not resemble either his "n" or "v." Also, his "h" does not look like his "k." Scribe 2's "p" actually looks more like his elongated "s" than his "f." Scribe 3's "r" does not resemble either his "n" or his "s." Although similar to his "f," scribe 3's "p" is oddly shaped, and the stem of his "p" tends to be shorter than the stem of his "f." Also, Scribe 3's b, h, and k are distinct.
In short, I do not see any convincing evidence to justify the claim that the scribes were merely correcting their faulty penmanship. On the contrary, they were replacing one letter with a different letter by either overwriting or erasing the original letter. Furthermore, this explanation requires us to believe, for example, that Oliver Cowdery's incorrectly formed "n" looked like an "r," his incorrectly formed "v" lookd like an "r," and his incorrectly formed "s" looked like and "r." But, on the other hand, Oliver's incorrectly formed "r" sometimes looked like an "n," sometimes like a "v," and sometimes like an "s." All of this seems highly improbable. And, as far as I am aware, there is no recognizable pattern in the manuscript of a hypothetically malformed "n" looking like a "v" or "s," a malformed "v" looking like an "n" or "s," or a malformed "s" looking like an "n" or a "v." But there are patterns of an "r" being changed to an "n," "v," or "s," and vice versa, and it appears that these patterns arise not because the scribe made a mistake in penmanship, but because the scribe mistook one letter for another. The critics also ignore other types of errors that I listed, which clearly cannot be explained as correcting penmanship errors. If the critics want to discount the evidence, they will have to come up with a much better explanation supported by real evidence.
Reply to Dan Vogel
Dan Vogel has offered a critique of my work on a message board at mormondiscussions.com.
Vogel states: "Unfortunately, Chandler's response to Skousen is based on a very poor understanding of O-MS, as well as the mechanics of Skousen's transcription. ... His evidence for visual copying is almost exclusively from misspelled words, or rather malformed letters and slips of the pen, which were later corrected."
So, apparently Vogel's position is that Skousen doesn't really mean what he says. When Skousen explains a symbol as "x has been overwritten by y," or another symbol as "the text may be x or y, with x preferred or intended," we are to understand that x and y do not represent two different letters but two attempts by the scribe to form the same letter. Skousen is not talking about spelling errors where one letter is mistaken for another. Unfortunately for Vogel, this is not what Skousen actually says. For example, Skousen states: "The original manuscript is not letter-for-letter perfect, but evidence suggests that it contained relatively few errors (excluding spelling variants)" (p. 6). Then in explaining overwriting, Skousen says: "If the text is changed or a whole letter is overwritten, I specify both the original text and the correcting text, separated by a vertical bar" (p. 22). Skousen is talking about spelling variants and replacing one letter by another, not merely correcting a slip of the pen. In fact, Skousen uses other symbols to designate ways in which a letter has been malformed. It seems to me that it is Vogel who doesn't understand the mechanics of Skousen's transcription.
Vogel's discussion of Skousen's examples amounts to little more than opining that Skousen's explanations are "more likely" than mine. This a rather poor argument and seems to depend on accepting Vogel's position that the manuscript was dictated.
Vogel states that dittography and haplography -- common scribal errors -- do not occur in the O-MS:
There is also no evidence for dittography in O-MS, although there are numerous examples in P-MS, of which the following are examples:
[symbols= (word) for strikeouts; \word/ for above the line insertions; numbers in first column represent page numbers in P-MS]
2 of my father (of my father)
4 thou Nephi (because) because
9 my (Mother) Mother Sariah
10 to give (to give) a full account
11 & I stood before my Brethren & spake unto them again & it came to pass (& I stood before m)) that they were angery
16 (& behold) & behold this thing
16-17 the (spirit) spirit
18 & beheld (the land) the land of promise
20 & I beheld (& I beheld) the wrath of God
23 stumbling Blocks (if it so be that they) \&/ hearden not their hearts against the Lamb \God/ (if it so be that they hearden \not/ their hearts against the Lamb of God) they shall be numbered among ...
24 he was (dressed) dressed
25 (behold) behold
62 & shall (& shall)
80 the Jews do understand the things of the Prophets, & there is none other People that understand the things (of the Prophets) spoken unto the Jews ...
89 & (lull) lull them
101 I (take) take away
106 & the size thereof & ye shall not clear away the bad ther (eof the size there of & ye shall not clear away th) \eof all at once lest the roots thereof should/ be to strong for the graft
124 which hath been (prepare from) prepared from the foundation
158 for there was nothing preached in all the church (es in the land of Zarahmela) -es except it were repentance and faith in God and now there was Seven churches in the land of Zarahmela and ...
198 by the Devil and led by (the chains of Hell and Amulek) his will down to destruction, now this is what is meant by the Chains of Hell and Amulek hath spoken ...
While it's certainly possible to have a repeated word in oral dictation from false starts, other types of dittography are clearly from the scribe's eye skipping lines. Dittographic evidence is absent from the O-MS, but frequently appears in P-MS.
Vogel's declaration that there is no evidence in the O-MS of either dittography or haplography is incorrect. I haven't gone through the entire manuscript, but here are a few examples.
Dittography: we (we) went down to the land of our inheritance (68:12-13) out of (out of) captivity (70-71:54, 1)
the spirit said unto me again (to me) slay him (72:31-32)
ishmael and his wife (and) (his Wife) and his three other daugters (83:12-13) they did give thanks unto the lord their god and they did (give) offer (thanks) sacrifice (87:24-25)
after that i had traveld for the space (for) of menny hours (88:44)
the river of water (of) (water of water) a great and spesious bilding (91:48-49)
a prophet which should come before the masiah (whi) to prepare the way (96:33-34)
the fall there of (there of) was exceding great (107:16-17)
of great worth unto the gentiles & the (gen) Angel of the Lord said (116:20)
wherefore the final (fi) state of the souls (131:38)
they being lead the Lead their God (141:28)
to the Queen informing her that the (Qu) King had been slain (395:20)
Haplography:
I had smote off his (own) head with his own sword (73:49)
and Laban also (d) was a descendant of joseph (80:5)
how is it (how great things) that ye have forgotten how great things (84:25-26)
it came to pass that (I) after i had praid unto the lord (88:47-48)
for the plates uppon which i make a (pe) full account of my people (94:44-45)
come to the (Re) knowlledge of the true masiah their lord and their redemer (98:14-15)
i desire to be hold (to) t(re)he things which my father saw ... thy father saw the tree (101:4-7)
have been lifted up (above) by the power of God above all other Nations (119:11-12)
& (pre) most precious parts (120:40)
I did slay (bea) wild beasts (136:1)
make himself a (Ru) King & a ruler over us (137:21)
O house of (I) Jacob which are called by the name of Israel (153-54: 38, 1)
the Lamanites could not come upon us by (many) night and slay us which they attempted many times (450:9)
Apparently, Vogel knows so little about the O-MS that he was completely unaware of these examples.
Let's consider another type of error documented by Vogel in his own edition of the Newel Knight Journal. Vogel notes two places in which the manuscript replaces "my" with "his," three places where "me" is overwritten by "him," another place where "I" is overwritten by "he," and "he" is overwritten by "him." Vogel states: "This kind of change is important because it shows how closely Knight followed Joseph Smith's published history" (Early Mormon Documents, 4:31). But similar changes are found in the O-MS. Here are some examples.
many were lost from (My view) his view (92:16)
which (their) thy father saw (111:30)
the Angel saith ... the rath of God is upon the seed of (my) thy Brethren (114:28)
the one pointed the way whither (they) we should go (133:31)
the power of the Lord that hath shaken (me) us (145:22)
in as much as ye will not keep (his) my commandments ye shall be cut off from (his) my presance (169:4-5)
according to the time which (he) they laboured (212:13)
behold (he) we went forth even in wrath (264:19)
destruction among those who (he) they so dearly beloved (268:19)
also his people with them if (Moro) they would spare the remainder (372:17)
the armies of the Nephites or of Moroni returned & came to (his) their houses (372:26)
that if (he) they would support (379:32)
for he knew (that he) that they would stir up the Lamanites (385:9)
went forth unto him to be Baptised for (he) they came repenting (509:15) (they could) we can not hit him (509:19)
These emendations seem to indicate that a text was being followed closely but was also being changed in ways similar to Knight's journal.
Vogel hasn't shown that Skousen didn't mean exactly what he said about replacing one letter by another, he hasn't demonstrated that Skousen's explanations are "more likely" than other possibilities, he is completely unaware of dittography and haplography in the O-MS, and he ignores changes similar to those in Knight's journal. All of this poses serious challenges to Vogel's position.
2nd Reply to Dan Vogel
In explaining overwriting, Skousen gives three examples.
Braces { } are used to show overwriting of the text on the manuscript. In many instances, a single letter was partially overwritten in order to make the letter read more clearly. In such cases, there was no intended change in the letter. For instance, in 1 Nephi 2:17 ... Oliver Cowdery partially rewrote the sentence-initial ampersand:
... {&}I spake unto Sam
If the text is changed or a whole letter is overwritten, I specify both the original text and the correcting text, separated by a vertical bar. In 1 Nephi 2:11 ..., Oliver Cowdery first started to write foolish with fl, but then overwrote his partially written l with an o:
... because of the f{l(-)|o}olish imma{g}ionations of
Sometimes the overwriting occurred because the scribe ran out of ink while writing the word. In such a case, there is normally a note stating that this was the cause of the overwriting. In 1 Nephi 12:2 ... scribe 3 rewrote the first e of beheld when he ran out of ink writing the word:
other & i b{e | e}held wars and rumers of wars and great
(Skousen 2001, 22)
Despite the fact that Skousen distinguishes these three situations, Vogel declares concerning the second example (foolish) that "Skousen's example on page 22 is a slip of the pen," and "a malformed letter can also look like another letter." But is it a mere slip of the pen to eliminate two o's and write fl instead? I would describe this more as a slip in attention. An "l" is not a malformed "o," and Skousen does not indicate that he regarded any letter as malformed or that a malformed letter was being corrected by attempting to write the letter again correctly. In fact, this example is evidence that Skousen is talking about two different letters. If Skousen thought that he was dealing with a malformed letter, he would have represented it as he did in either example 1 or 3, as a partial overwrite or as the same letter repeated, not as the correction of one letter by a different letter.
Vogel provides a photo from the Oliver Cowdery Letterbook of the word "present" written by Oliver Cowdery to show that there are similarities in the way Cowdery formed different letters. Vogel says that the "p" resembles an "f," but he doesn't show us how Cowdery formed his "f." Also, Cowdery did not attempt to correct any of the letters by overwriting them to make them clearer. What we need is photos from the O-MS of actual changes in the manuscript
Vogel cites two examples that I used in which "lard" is changed to "land" and "sone" is changed to "sore." He states: "So, although the words look like 'lard' and 'sone', Cowdery intended to write 'land' and 'sore'." My question is, how does Vogel know what Cowdery intended to write? Perhaps he was writing what he thought he saw.
Vogel states: "These are examples of where the malformed letters can make nonsensical words, but what if the similarity in lettering makes sense either way? Skousen handles those situations in a different way ...." He then says that this "subtle distinction ... was lost on Chandler". Actually, Vogel doesn't understand the distinction that Skousen is making. Skousen is not using different symbols to distinguish between nonsense words and words that make sense. He uses one set of symbols to represent letters that are legible and the other symbols to represent situations where he was not really certain what letters were written because they were difficult to read. But in either case, the reading can produce either nonsense words or words that make sense. Vogel says, "With malformed letters, Skousen is apparently going solely on appearance because there is no ambiguity in meaning." This makes no sense to me. Vogel is saying that Skousen saw clearly, for example, that a letter was a malformed "n," but nonetheless designated it as a "r" overwritten by an "n." Why wouldn't Skousen simply represent it as an "n" overwritten by an "n," since he actually has a symbol for this purpose? And, by the way, none of the examples that I have used fall into the ambiguous category.
Vogel hasn't produced any credible evidence that Skousen was dealing with malformed letters in the examples that I have used, which is critical for his argument. Vogel also doesn't seem to realize that if his interpretation were correct, then in any particular instance we would have no way of knowing whether a scribe had actually written two different letters or was merely correcting a malformed letter. That would render Skousen's work absolutely worthless as a critical text.
Vogel asks, "What scribe copies letter by letter nonsensical words?" I haven't made this claim. But if a scribe is copying a text and is not certain what a written word is, he may have to puzzle it out as he goes along, realizing what the word is only after he has written down an incorrect letter that would produce nonsense. So, the word would not have been nonsense to him, but only uncertain. Writing an incorrect letter can also be due simply to scribal inattention. For example, Bruce Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, says that "even with the strongest determination to copy a text without error, a scribe copying a text of considerable length will almost inevitably introduce changes in the wording. It is understandable that mistakes can arise from inattentiveness brought on by weariness" (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_trans_metzger3.html). Also, Orville Jenkins suggests that some errors in biblical manuscripts are due to mechanical copying:
Mechanical copying -- Not Information Processing
Copying texts was a form of devotion and worship, not a cognitive process as modern, analytical westerners might think, with our focus on information and personal knowledge. Cognitive interaction with the text as you copied it was not a big part of the process of copying of the biblical texts in the historical process before the development of printing.
To get an idea how this might work, talk to a copy-typist about their process of typing from a printed page. I have been told by many that they do it mechanically, not interacting with the information. The latter hinders their focus on the process of getting the letter sequence through their fingers to the keyboard. Copyists have told me they often are only vaguely aware of what they were typing, and sometimes cannot even tell you what the article said. http://orvillejenkins.com/theology/oldermss.html
Joseph Smith's scribes were not professionals with training in copying manuscripts, and they were most likely more concerned with copying the text than with understanding what was being copied.
Vogel accuses me of "speculating some far fetched scenarios to explain aaway Skousen's evidence." I don't see anything far fetched about my explanations of Skousen's examples. I stated that Skousen's first example of mishearing "an" as "and" could as easily be explained as a visual misreading. The use of an ampersand by the scribe does not disprove this, since he could simply have replaced a written "an" with the ampersand.
In Skousen's second example of mishearing "reed" as "weed," I also suggested that visual misreading might have been the cause for the error. However, upon further investigation, I see that this example is based upon a mere assumption. In the O-MS, the text reads simply: "shall wither even as a (dred) dried weed." There is no indication that the scribe changed "weed." However, in the P-MS, "weed" was changed to "reed." Skousen has merely assumed that because of this change in P, "reed" was also the word dictated to the scribe for the O-MS. But this assumption can't be proven from the text of O itself. So it is possible that "weed" was correctly copied by the scribe in O. Perhaps a change was made in P because Cowdery saw a similarity to Isaiah 19:6: "dried up: the reeds and flags shall wither."
Skousen's third example is mishearing "beat" as "meet." I suggested that since either word fits the context of the sentence, which reads "for it was they who did (meet) beat the Lamanites" (Alma 57:22), Cowdery may have simply decided to change the word. The Book of Mormon provides examples of both uses.
in which the Nephites did beat the Lamanites (Mormon 1:11)
in the which they did beat the Nephites (Mormon 4:19)
being prepared to meet the Lamanites (Jarom 1:9)
went forth without arms to meet the Lamanites. And it came to pass that they did meet the Lamanites (Mosiah 20:25)
they were prepared to meet the Amlicites (Alma 2:13)
the army which was sent by Moroni, which was led by a man whose name was Teancum, did meet the people of Morianton (Alma 50:35)
he marched with the remainder to meet the Lamanites (Alma 52:26)
we did meet the spies of our armies (Alma 57:30)
Moroni and Pahoran went down with their armies into the land of Zarahemla, and went forth against the city, and did meet the men of Pachus (Alma 62:7)
In fact, "meet" seems to be the preferred word in Alma, which suggests that it may have been original.
Skousen's fourth example is two instances in which "him" was replaced by "them." I suggested that since "him" occurs twice in the text before the incorrect occurrence, Cowdery could have become confused. This is not a far fetched explanation, and even Vogel admits that this is possible. In the second example, I suggested that Cowdery might have incorrectly anticipated what the next word was going to be. Again, this is not far fetched, and both Skousen and Vogel use scribal anticipation to explain errors. Apparently, this is an illegitimate explanation only if I use it.
Skousen's fifth example is an uncorrected "Sons" in O that was changed to "Son" in P. Skousen claims that the error was due to the word "see" which follows "Son" so that when the phrase "Son see" was dictated, Cowdery could not tell if "Son" was singular or plural. But, of course, if "see" was written closely to "Son," Cowdery could have mistakenly seen "Son" as "Sons." And, again, the O-MS does not provide definitive proof that "Sons" was an error. The assumption that it was an error depends on the change in P.
Vogel engages in far more creative speculation than I to explain away the examples that I provided of dittography and haplography. Here are some of his comments.
"Or is it evidence that JS was struggling with impromptu dictation of a difficult passage?"
"or JS correcting himself when he added a dependent clause."
"Rather, the type of correction one would expect in impromptu dictation, when JS change [sic] his mind about word ordering."
"Again, probably JS adding an adjective after dictating the noun."
"Most likely JS rephrasing."
"JS saying 'Israel' and then deciding to qualify the term."
Vogel argues that I ignore eyewitness testimony regarding the manner in which Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon by placing his seer stone in a hat and dictating without benefit of manuscript or books. But Vogel himself ignores parts of these eyewitness testimonies. For example, Emma Smith stated that Joseph did not have the ability to write the Book of Mormon, but Vogel believes that he did. People like Martin Harris and David Whitmer said that during the translation process, sentences in English would appear to Joseph, which he read off to the scribe, and the sentences would not disappear until the scribe had made a correct copy. But Vogel gives a quite different view of the translation process, as we have seen from his comments, claiming that changes in O are evidence of Joseph Smith's struggles, corrections, and rephrasing during dictation.
We have also seen that some of the words in O were not changed until the P-MS was produced, so the eyewitness descriptions were incorrect. If Vogel thinks that the testimonies of eyewitnesses give a false description of the actual translation process, why does he think that they are reliable concerning the lack of source material? Joseph Smith undoubtedly did use the stone in a hat trick, just as he had during his money-digging ventures, to convince people to believe in his powers. It is probable that initially Joseph used a dictation method with Emma and Martin Harris acting as scribes, but we do not have the manuscript that they produced. But I think that Smith also attracted willing accomplices, like Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, who were ready to aid him in his deception.
Vogel claims that my examples are ambiguous and are not definitive because there is no word or words repeated in the text that would cause the scribe's eye to skip to the wrong place in the manuscript while copying. I think that fatigue and confusion are sufficient to explain why the scribe's eye might have skipped to the wrong place in the text, but to satisfy Vogel, I offer some further examples of dittography and haplography.
Dittography
and Was baptsd of him and after that he was baptised (of) i beheld the hevens (105:29-30)
upon your crimes (h(-)) to harrow up your (cr) Soul if it were not (340:35)
Haplography
I know of myself not of the (Carnal mind) (but of) (the spiritual) (tempral but of) (the spiritual) temporal but of the spiritual not of the Carnal mind but of God (320:24-25)
if ye keep not his (presance) commandments ye shall be cut off from his presance (328:18)
we will seek not your (liv) blood but we will spare your lives (369:5)
& delivered up his (Sim) sword & his Simetar (369:11)
it came to pass that (same s)e Ameleckiah took that same servant(s) (395:26)
they did drink & were merry & by (th)& by they were all drunken (437:34)
I have no doubt that Vogel will find some imaginative ways to explain away these examples as well.
There are also many places in O where text was omitted and then inserted above the line. Here are some examples.
be like unto this River continually running into the fountain of all righteousness (62:19)
I beheld the Church of the Lamb of god & its numbers were few (122:3-4)
the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches (127:21-22)
in as much as ye will not keep (his)my commandments ye shall be cut off from (his) my presance (169:4-5)
do ye suppose that ye can convince the Lamanites of the incorrectness of the traditions of their fathers (265:1-2)
we will try the hearts of our brethren whether they will that ye shall come into their land (270:11)
& speak with the trump of God with a (c)voice to shake the earth & cry repentance unto every People (277:24-25)
I am grieved because of the hardness of your heart yea that ye will (289:14)
as my mind caught hold upon this thought I cried within my heart O Jesus thou Son of God have mercy (323:18-19)
for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren (long) so long as there should (381:24)
among all the People of the Lamanites which was composed of the Lamanites & the Lemuelites & the Ishmaelites (395:34)
by pulling down the banks of earth they were filled up in a measure with their dead (404:10-11)
did bring forth unto them therefore they did seek to cut (all) off the strength (407:35)
it was easier to keep the city from falling into the hands of the Lamanites than to retake it from them he supposed that they would easily maintai(r)n that City (468:20-21)
in the com(n)mencement of the (forth) fortyeth year of the Reign of the Judges o(r)ver the People (487:26-27)
These examples raise a number of questions. When were the insertions made - immediately or at a later time? If later, how was the correct text determined, if there was no source manuscript? If the scribe was copying a source manuscript, the examples demonstrate that through inattention the scribe could omit text even without word similarities drawing his eye to the wrong place in the manuscript.
Skousen Speaks -- At Last!
At the urging of Dan Vogel, Royal Skousen has finally offered at least a few words explaining how he regards the type of errors involving the correction of letters within words. Vogel writes:
Skousen's effort to avoid issues of intentionality, while being as exacting in his transcription as possible, oddly and ironically makes it appear he thought the scribe intended to write "amorg" and "sone". To clarify this issue, I wrote Skousen on 23 February 2007 as follows:--
Quote:
Royal,
Thanks for responding. I want to understand your method better. I'm aware of the difference between {x|y} and [x|y], although I don't think Chandler is. But I want to make sure I'm representing you correctly.
Chandler: the Lord hath concecrated this lard=land unto me (165:29)
Skousen: the Lord hath concecrated this la{r|n}[d] unto me (165:29)
Chandler: the tempest began to be exceding sone=sore (147:25)
Skousen: the tempest [be]gan to be exceding so{n|r}e (147:25)
In these two examples, are you trying to convey the idea that the scribe corrected his penmanship because his "n" looked too much like an "r", and visa versa, as opposed to {r} or {n} corrections? In other words, do you understand that the similarity between the scribe's "r" and "n", together with the hast of writing, lead to a malformed letter that was indistinguishable from a real letter, but the wrong one? You don't think the scribe intentionally wrote nonsensical words like "lard" and "sone"?
It would be helpful to understand what you were thinking in these situations.
Sincerely,
Dan Vogel
To which Skousen kindly responded on 24 February 2007:--
Quote:
Dear Dan,
Your interpretation is correct. I don't think the scribe intended to write "lard" or "sone", but he noticed that his n looked like an r, so he overwrote it (for "land"); similarly, his r in "sore" looked like an n, so he overwrote it with an r. But of course one can't prove what the scribe intended, but it sure looks that way to me.
A case of {r} or {n} means that the scribe wrote a r and then overwrote part of it, but both the first and the second are r's. Sometimes, there are things like {r|r}, which means that the whole r was overwritten. This sometimes happens when the scribe's quill runs out of ink.
Best wishes, Royal.
This correspondence is interesting for several reasons. First, it indicates that despite his vehement arguments, Vogel was not really certain what Skousen intended his symbols to mean.
Second, Skousen indicates that he is only interpreting what appears in the corrections, but "of course one can't prove what the scribe intended." So, the primary question has not really been resolved: Did the scribe write one letter and then replace it with a different letter, or did he merely attempt to correct a malformed letter by overwriting it with the same letter?
And third, I must repeat what I have already stated. If Skousen's symbols mean what he and Vogel now say that they mean, then Skousen's work is worthless as a critical text, because in any particular instance, we do not know what letter the scribe actually wrote, and therefore, we can not know whether it is a copying error or merely a correction of bad penmanship.
I leave you to decide for yourself whether the Vogel-Skousen interpretation of the manuscript evidence is reasonable and correct.
Parry, Donald W, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, eds. 2002. Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon. Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
Skousen, Royal. 1997. "Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript." In Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins. Edited by Noel B. Reynolds. Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
Skousen, Royal, ed. 2001. The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text. Provo, Utah: The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
RSS | Site Map | Links
Print
Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates
Richard Bushman
Lyndon Lamborn
The Joseph Smith Papers Project
How fair is FAIR?
Introducing the Dawn of a New Era in BofM Geography Research