DiscussMormonism.com

http://rsc.BYU.edu/archived/historicity ... -book-abra

The BYU authors of this piece quote J.A. Brinkman:

"Where no sound evidence exists to the contrary, an isolated document, according to its capacity, is to be accepted as historically accurate until proven otherwise."

Not only would Brinkman almost certainly disapprove of the use of this principle for a text of dubious provenance, but the BYU authors are also ignoring the important conditional at the beginning of Brinkman's statement: "Where no sound evidence exists to the contrary." It's one thing to do presuppositional apologetics; it's quite another to try to make it appear that presuppositional apologetics are the methodological norm among secular scholars.

CaliforniaKid wrote:http://rsc.BYU.edu/archived/historicity-and-latter-day-saint-scriptures/3-historical-plausibility-historicity-book-abra

The BYU authors of this piece quote J.A. Brinkman:

"Where no sound evidence exists to the contrary, an isolated document, according to its capacity, is to be accepted as historically accurate until proven otherwise."

Not only would Brinkman almost certainly disapprove of the use of this principle for a text of dubious provenance, but the BYU authors are also ignoring the important conditional at the beginning of Brinkman's statement: "Where no sound evidence exists to the contrary." It's one thing to do presuppositional apologetics; it's quite another to try to make it appear that presuppositional apologetics are the methodological norm among secular scholars.

But ... but ... nobody disputes the historical authenticity of the Book of Breathings papyrus, do they?

Oh wait ... they are trying to get us to accept Joseph Smith's Abrahamic fantasy in 19th Century fake Bible English (which of course Gee maintains has nothing to do with the extant papyrus) on the same terms as a text of ancient origin.

Right.


Edited to add:

J.A. Brinkman is apparently still with us, though emeritus:

JOHN BRINKMAN
Charles H. Swift Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Mesopotamian History
j-brinkman@uchicago.edu
(773) 702-9545

Since unlike me you are not an anonymous coward, why not email him and see what he thinks of his views being used to support a presumption of authenticity of the Book of Abraham? Then return and report.

When one finds a paper written by two Ph.D.'s, citing 181 references, and claiming to provide evidence for the historical plausibility of a "primary source" document, the question that arises is why such a paper is not (and cannot be) found in the mainstream, peer reviewed literature.

The reason is simple. A quick read of such papers shows them to be apologetics and not science (or even dispassionate scholarship). Consider the overwhelming evidence contradictory to the conclusions of the article that was not even mentioned, let alone dealt with, in the text.

Such papers are written as pseudo-scholarship for the faithful in order to generate plausible deniability that the foundation claims and revealed scriptures of the LDS Church are wholly and completely fraudulent. The fact that they cannot be published in peer reviewed literature pretty much means that they fall short of the mark for all but the most devoted (or deluded) believers.

The authors falsely claim to establish plausibility while admitting that they are unable to establish proof because of lack of evidence. In a stunning display of intellectual dishonesty, they fail to point out that there is more than enough evidence to establish the entire document (Book of Abraham) as a monumental fraud.

Brinkman says he's in Europe without library access this month, so he can't verify the quote. But he finds it hard to believe that he would have made an unqualified assertion of this sort and would like to check the context before replying.