When questions about Egyptian practice, cultural or art have some relevance, yes.
Edited to add an example, in case you didn't know what I meant. So some Egyptologists have made statements that the facsimilie is not "translated" correctly. A (****) always means this, and a(@@@@) always means something else. And that isn't what the Book of Abraham says.
But when an Egyptologist says it was common practice for one figure to have several meanings, one of which could corespond to one of the "translations" then that would be pertinent.
Thank you for the direct answer. I have a couple of comments.
One, since I have not followed Book of Abraham apologia carefully, I haven't read all of Kevin's commentary on the subject. But the vast majority of his commentary that I have read is not dealing with the specifics of translation (in the traditional sense of the word, not how you use it), or cultural or artistic elements. Instead, he is dealing with the practical issue of whether or not the papyrii that we have is the same papyrii that was used to produce the Book of Abraham, and whether or not Joseph Smith used the KEP to translate said document.
Can you agree with me that, in regards to this specific point, it is not necessary to be an Eygptologist, and, instead, it is only necessary to have thoroughly studied the documents along with the contemporary statements made about those documents?
Second - it is possible to attain an adequate level of lay-person knowledge in order to be able to evaluate the strength of certain claims. If one studies the writings of the people who are experts in the field, one can get a sense of when an individual - even if that individual is also an expert - is making a claim that the mainstream experts would reject. A simple example, regarding my favorite subject, Mesoamerica. If someone has read books and essays on how the ancient Mesoamericans engaged in warfare, then one can have a good sense of what the Mesoamerican experts say on the subject. So when someone who is also an expert in Mesoamerica, like John Clark, makes a statement such as the warfare in ancient Mesoamerica matches what is described in the Book of Mormon, that lay person, such as myself, can recognize that this is
not a statement that the mainstream experts would agree upon. (and, in fact, in our correspondence Dr. Clark admitting to oversimplifying the issue and making statements that his peers would not condone)
Remember the conditions for the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. The person must not just be a qualified expert in the field in question, but also:
3.There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
LDS apologists, by definition, are significantly biased. I know you will protest this, but it is true by definition. They are biased because the entire purpose of apologia is to defend the faith. Hence, the conclusion was reached a priori. In addition, when dealing with the very issues that cause trouble for the faith, they have gone outside an area of "adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject." So while John Clark and Brant Gardner may agree that the warfare in the Book of Mormon matches ancient Mesoamerica, you're not going to find other experts who would agree.