Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon project needs new home

[_Yahoo Bot]

I'm surprised that it takes that kind of money to pursue a hobby like that. I mean, I'm trying to buy a vintage Corvette. I can understand $40K.

Oh well.

[_Bazooka]

Begging for donations is becoming a fairly common event for DCP.

I am a board member of a non-profit. Begging for donations constitutes about 90 percent of our existence.

Is it meant to be non-profit or is that just your influence?

[_Analytics]

I'm surprised that it takes that kind of money to pursue a hobby like that. I mean, I'm trying to buy a vintage Corvette. I can understand $40K.

Oh well.

What the money is for, specifically, is confusing. My guess is that BYU was paying him a salary of $80k, and his workload was 50% teaching and 50% research. They now decided they will no longer pay him to research this, so in order to keep paying the bills without doubling his teaching load, he needs the $40k from an outside source.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Is it meant to be non-profit or is that just your influence?

Still chugging along with less than a full deck, I see. I hope you realize that a "non-profit" does not mean that a company is either making or loosing money (to spell it the most likely way you'd spell it).

[_Bazooka]

Is it meant to be non-profit or is that just your influence?

Still chugging along with less than a full deck, I see. I hope you realize that a "non-profit" does not mean that a company is either making or loosing money (to spell it the most likely way you'd spell it).

Yeah, guess I'm not as wired in to fings like wot ewe is.....

[_Tom]

Skousen's current CV (updated 1 December 2014) provides some further information on his current work. Here are some entries in the publications section:

The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, volume 3 of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, to be published in six parts by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, in 2015-17 [currently over 1860 pages typeset].

Photographs and Transcript of the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, edited with Robin Jensen. Joseph Smith Papers, to appear in 2015.

A Complete Electronic Collation of the Book of Mormon (on CDs, online, and a few printed copies in archival form in various research libraries, volume 5 of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, to be published by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, in 2017.

Photographs and Transcript of the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, edited with Robin Jensen. Joseph Smith Papers, to appear in 2017.

Skousen's CV also includes items he classifies as "Fundamental Scholarly Discoveries and Academic Accomplishments." He marks several items with asterisks to indicate that some findings have not yet appeared in print. Here are some of the items:

Establishing the need for LDS readers to have an English Bible Translation with modern English meanings. Thus far the best one I have found is the English Standard Version (ESV), from its 2011 revision.

It's unclear how, when, or where Skousen established such a need.

There are serious problems with the Joseph Smith Translation that prevent it from being fully canonized.

No details on this finding are provided.

* The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralineraly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription -- and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book.

I believe photographs of Ab2 are posted online here. (I welcome a correction if I am mistaken.)

The online publication on 7 October 2014 by the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture of volume 4 of the critical text, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, a read-only version provided without cost to all readers. All six parts, in PDF format, are searchable. This electronic publication, permitted to the author by his 1998 agreement with FARMS, thus frees the critical text analysis from its physical printed form.

A willing admission that mistakes have been made in the history of the critical text project; thus there has been a concerted effort to publish cases where I have changed my mind. This attempt to correct errors can be found in the addenda section of volume 4 of the critical text, at the end of the last of the six parts. In addition, there is my 19 October 2013 presentation at the Book of Mormon Archaeological Foundation, devoted entirely to this subject. Morever [sic], I have always tried to acknowledge those who have helped me in this project and made suggestions, especially for emendation.

Also included are several items regarding volumes 3 and 5 of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project:

A complete analysis of the grammatical emendation of the Book of Mormon text (of about 1,300 typeset pages), to appear as parts 1 and 2 of volume 3 of the critical text, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon. This publication will include the collaborative work of Stanford Carmack.

A complete analysis of the spelling variation in the Book of Mormon text (of about 400 typeset pages) will appear as part 3 of volume 3 of the critical text.

Part 4 of volume 3 will cover the nature of the original text of the Book of Mormon, with an analysis of its vocabulary, the meanings of its words, and the types of phrases and syntactic constructions it permits. As with parts 1 and 2, this part 4 will include the collaborative work of Stanford Carmack. A comparison between the King James Bible and those portions directly quoted in the Book of Mormon will be thoroughly delineated.

Part 5 of volume 3 will cover the history of the text, from the manuscripts to the early printed editions, and then on to the later printed editions, with changes in format and language character. This part will include a thorough discussion of the types of change, including conjectural changes, in the history of the text.

And part 6 of volume 3 will outline the history of the modem critical text project of the Book of Mormon, including the FARMS critical text project (from 1984-86) and the current project (beginning in 1988).

There will also be volume 5, a computerized collation of all the textual variation in the history of the Book of Mormon text, including all cases of conjectural emendation.

[_sock puppet]

Skousen's current CV (updated 1 December 2014) provides some further information on his current work. Here are some entries in the publications section:

* * *

* The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralineraly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription -- and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book.

'My, my, my, said the spider to the fly.'

This should be occasion for Dr Shades to allow Shulem to have Terrestrial privileges again. Here, Royal is trying to de-couple the link of those ridiculous Facsimiles from the LDS canon. Well isn't that interesting? Royal is a cafeteria Momon after all, picking and choosing what parts of the scriptures he considers canon, and those he does not. I wonder if Prophet Royal got a revelation, and will be letting TSM & the 14 Ladies in Waiting in on what Elohim has revealed to Prophet Royal. So Elohim let JSJr lead the Saints astray by inserting extra materials, and then Elohim let two other prophets, John Taylor in 1880 and Joseph F Smith in 1902, mislead the Saints into canonizing the BoAbr as scripture, as the word of god, with these extra, not-god's-word included.

"We thank the O God for a Royal, to guide us in these latter days... ."

What a joke. LDS apologetics, that is.

[_moksha]

Just wanted to repaste an Uncle Dale quote from 2009 regarding the uproar about Royal Skousen's book

Uncle Dale: But for the Signature Books crowd -- the Sunstone symposium-goers -- the few knowledgeable Gentile scholars
of Mormonism -- the evidence, pointing to a tight translation will tend toward speculation that Joseph himself did not
comprehend the entirety of a text generally attributable entirely to him. He may have mis-read (or mis-remembered) barges
for barques, Amalekites for Amlicites, and King Mosiah for King Benjamin.

Had to look up barques, but Uncle Dale makes an excellent point with this. Ocean going barges are an absurdity.

[_Tom]

Skousen's current CV (updated 1 December 2014) provides some further information on his current work. Here are some entries in the publications section:

* * *

* The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralineraly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription -- and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book.

'My, my, my, said the spider to the fly.'

This should be occasion for Dr Shades to allow Shulem to have Terrestrial privileges again. Here, Royal is trying to de-couple the link of those ridiculous Facsimiles from the LDS canon. Well isn't that interesting? Royal is a cafeteria Momon after all, picking and choosing what parts of the scriptures he considers canon, and those he does not. I wonder if Prophet Royal got a revelation, and will be letting TSM & the 14 Ladies in Waiting in on what Elohim has revealed to Prophet Royal. So Elohim let JSJr lead the Saints astray by inserting extra materials, and then Elohim let two other prophets, John Taylor in 1880 and Joseph F Smith in 1902, mislead the Saints into canonizing the BoAbr as scripture, as the word of god, with these extra, not-god's-word included.

"We thank the O God for a Royal, to guide us in these latter days... ."

What a joke. LDS apologetics, that is.

I now wonder if the "finding" is original to Skousen. After looking through some recent Book of Abraham apologetics, I noticed that Kerry Muhlestein's 2011 article titled "Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: A Faithful, Egyptological Point of View" makes a similar attempt to de-couple the link:

The Book of Abraham itself says that the fashion (or drawing) of the idolatrous gods is “at the beginning” (Abraham 1:14), presumably of the record or papyrus on which the text is recorded. This statement seems to indicate that the vignette depicting the altar and idols is not adjacent to the text, but some distance from it—at the beginning. We do not know whether it was Abraham or a later scribe who created the drawing and inserted the statement. Furthermore, in the oldest Book of Abraham manuscripts we have, this phrase was inserted after the rest of the text was written, meaning that Joseph or his scribes likely inserted it as they were preparing to publish the text. We cannot tell who wrote this line.

[_Gadianton]

Tom,

thanks for your scholarly insights in this thread. From one angle, I have a lot of respect for Skousen, who won't allow the Church or even his apologist friends influence his work. I can't but help root for him, and I hope he gets all his work published. Hey, I'll tell you right now that 40k put toward finishing his research is money far better spend than 40k more of the standard fare published by Interpreter.

The project has some challenges though. For one, this is twenty years + of research that began in the mid-80's? That's like the project arch of building a supercollider or going to the moon from ground zero. Long projects are risky because they carry significant risks of the backdrop changing too much to allow for completion. That's why even a super-power like the Soviet Union thought in terms of 5-year plans. And while I commend his desire to keep the scholarship pure, he's running the risk of any isolated thinker, no matter how brilliant and careful, especially when considering the large degree of subjectivity to this kind of research. It seems to me his goal is to be really, really careful, and produce the "definitive work" in hardback and close the matter. Quite ambitious.

Yeah, it's interesting how the apologists tip-toe around this one. I think they are less concerned about the results, so long as the scholar is generally faithful to the apologist view of the gospel, and more concerned about bragging rights for yet more "scholarship" that shows how scholarly the Book of Mormon is and important it is to study, and how it is wrong for people to laugh at them for taking the book seriously.