Interpreter bemoans a new slight against their scholarship

[Philo Sofee]

And though I am trying to practice the academic charity they advocate in Book of Mormon Studies, this may also be evidence that they are not as well-versed in the universe of Book of Mormon research as they hold themselves out to be.

Those Book of Mormon Studies scholars do not understand the ways of the Interpreter warriors.

The 2,000 Stripped Interpreter Warriors.

[hauslern]

A review of the BYU Studies volume on Abraham has appeared in the Interpreter.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... m-studies/

Quinten Barney
" "the thirty-pus essays in this section nerveless leave readers with no excuse to not take the Book of Abrahams claim of historical seriously"

No nonlds Egyptologist has taken the Book of Abraham seriously. In fact they find some LDS claims and apologetics strange. Cooney & Mekis

Quinten mentions "mathematical equations that could be used to obtain an approximate length of an original papyrus scrolls. Has he read the work of Chris Smith and Andrew Cook?

"those whose faith has been rattled due to the Book of Abraham will most likely find many answers to their questions and concerns in this new volume"
From what I have read there are no answers except to argue the catalyst model. Book of Abraham papyri did not exist. Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles are wrong. Even Royal Skousen admits that. You don't need a degree in Egyptology to see that. Just google British Museum holdings on hypocephalus. What Smith seemed to consider as only one of its kind. Do you notice in Smith's interpretations of fac 2 he produces his opinions on what the drawings meant but with any writing its "cannot be revealed unto the world"

Here comes the doosey "Another aspect that makes this a work of value is that it is the result of the combined efforts of four scholars who have experience and training in biblical and Egyptological studies. Their combined credentials hold significantly more weight than any subreddit celebrity or blogger who proudly proclaims themselves an expert on the subject because they read Ritner or Runnells Three of the authors of a guide to the Book of Abraham hold PhDs from such universities as Yale, ULCA and University of Pennsylvania while another if finishing up his PHd at the Catholic University of America" Many Egyptologists have expresses amazement at efforts of these gentlemen to defend the Book of Abraham. Klaus Baer in his Dialogue article and in several letters he wrote to Wesley P Walters on Nibley's articles on the sed festival etc. Cooney thinks it was a bit rich for Gee to write a review of Tamas Mekis' book on the hypocephalus in a European journal where the readers might not be aware of Gee's apologetic work on the Book of Abraham. I notice if one does a google scholar search on Gee and Tamas Mekis one finds many of Gee's publications are in LDS or BYU journals as well as some in academic journals.

Finally he takes a swipe at those of us "who have raised issues with the Book of Abraham have often when pressed, betrayed merely a surface-level knowledge of the various issues they have raised. As a result their passion far exceeds their understanding. "
I think many of the folks here have more than just a surface-level knowledge. We all get to read and research and obtain the information from qualified scholars. Heaps of pdf papers on Google scholar.

[Marcus]

"The next section, “The Book of Abraham in the Ancient World,” contains over thirty chapters that present some of the evidence for the Book of Abraham being an authentic text from antiquity."

I look forward to seeing the footnotes quoting from papers Smoot, Gee, Muhlestein and or Thompson have published in any mainstream academic peer-reviewed journals, where they document their evidence that the LDS Book of Abraham has been shown to be an accurately translated "authentic text from antiquity," based on the papyrus Joseph Smith used.