Hauglid "I will embarrass Metcalfe!"

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, the spear-shaking has officially begun. Prof. Hauglid, apparently feeling the heat from the critics, has issued a kind of ultimatum challenge to critics. This comes from his thread, "Status of Book of Abraham Research" in the Pundit's Forum:

To any and all interested in current Book of Abraham mss research:

I think it is a good time to provide a general update on what's been happening with my research on the Book of Abraham mss. Unfortunately I will not be able to respond to posters with questions.

Once again, we find a Book of Abraham apologist who is unwilling to "answer questions." Obviously, this is because Hauglid (like Gee) finds it necessary to control every last little portion of the conversation. He is interested in Mopologetics, not scholarly exchange.

First, I think Will is doing very well in dealing with the Abr. mss. Despite the fact that he has to work with mostly inferior images. I agree with many of his points. And the ones I may disagree with are mainly due to not having good images.

Huh. Now, I thought that Will had boasted on a number of occasions that his images were super-dooper good. Now, though, we have Hauglid characterizing them as "inferior". D'oh!

Second, I can say this: The simultaneous dictation theory is fatally flawed. But I have not come to this conclusion lightly. I have considered it very carefully. Since the start of discussing these issues two years ago I have had a number of text critics look at these mss. I have told them about the simultaneous theory and also shown the evidence (i.e., dictation to two scribes, a limited number of common emendations, and, of course, the left-hand characters and corresponding? English text, etc.). I have used some of Ashment's or Brent's explanations (what I can get) for some of the common emendations. The text critics I consulted , like the critics of the Book of Abraham, can clearly see the points coming from the other side. But then when I start showing them some of the many anomalies between the two mss, things take a decidedly different turn. They quickly start picking up on the dittography, haplography, homoioarctons, homoioteleutons, erasure placement, ink flow, etc. Some of these people are respected New Testament text critics who understand these issue very well. They can spot a copy error a mile away. I have not yet found any of these people who have not come to the same conclusion I came to two years ago: we are dealing here with derivative copies.

(emphasis added)

First of all, why is he being so cagey in terms of naming these "experts"? Were they legitimate, scholarly people? Or were they a bunch of Hauglid's fellow TBM BYU cronies?

I have also visited with prominent Church historians and point blank asked them if they know of any evidence that Joseph Smith in any way, shape, or, form practiced simultaneous dictation. All know the historical records inside and out. None of them knew of any evidence for such a practice.

Again: why won't he name them?

Two years ago Brent and I had discussions online about the "gods of the land." This year it's Abr. 1:12. In both instances, Brent et al. failed to provide good evidence for the simultaneous theory. But instead created a supposed simultaneous scenario filled with historical supposition and weak textual arguments. Today it has not changed. Chris' model is variations on the same theme. It's the simultaneous theory informing the evidence. This model does not stand the test of evidence.

If Brent were to publish some of the explanations of these mss that I've seen, i.e. arguing for simultaneous dictation, I fear it could prove to be an embarrassment in the academic world.

Now he sounds like the Emperor from Return of the Jedi cackling with glee and declaring that he's "afraid" that the Rebellion will be brought to its knees.

The volume I'm working on will examine the evidence that emerges from the mss and then, as it should be, the evidence will inform varying degrees of plausible theories. Simultaneous dictation will be there but it will certainly not be at the top of the list. It will include a critical text of the Book of Abraham and transcriptions of the mss using sigla not unlike the transcriptions currently being produced in the Joseph Smith Papers Project (see Joseph Smith Project website). The books main purpose is to provide a textual history of the Book of Abraham. The section dealing with the origin of the Book of Abraham will be ancillary.

As many of you know, being an LDS scholar working on controversial research such as this immediately puts the scholar in a suspect position. Questions arise as to whether the scholar can be "scholarly" enough. Therefore, the LDS scholar must go the second mile in making sure the scholarship is solid and above reproach. This means the scholar has to work twice as hard as is normally required. But this will inevitably prove fruitful. For, at some near future point these mss will be made available for all to see. When that time comes, it will become much clearer what the Book of Abraham mss say for themselves.

Ah, okay. This is why he wouldn't name his "expert consultants." Anyways, is he nuts? Has he not seen the over-the-top treatment that critics have received from FARMS Review? (Ahem---*FIVE* reviews of Grant Palmer's book, anyone?)

Although some questions will be left unanswered it will be very clear what these mss are not.

Brian Hauglid

What? Not legitimate translations?

[_Scottie]

Pardon my ignorance here, but what is an mss?

[_TrashcanMan79]

Pardon my ignorance here, but what is an mss?

Abbreviation for manuscripts.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Quoting Hauglid as saying "I will embarrass Metcalfe!" is off base here. He did suggest that he thinks Brent will be embarrassed if he continues with his argument. The words speak for them self and there is no need to misrepresent it.


Phaedrus

[_dartagnan]

I can't wait until Brian publishes whatever it is he is working on. And I can't wait until he releases the names of the "experts" working on the KEP.

[_Who Knows]

Two years ago Brent and I had discussions online about the "gods of the land." This year it's Abr. 1:12. In both instances, Brent et al. failed to provide good evidence for the simultaneous theory. But instead created a supposed simultaneous scenario filled with historical supposition and weak textual arguments. Today it has not changed. Chris' model is variations on the same theme. It's the simultaneous theory informing the evidence. This model does not stand the test of evidence.

Brent et al. failed to provide good evidence for the simultaneous theory. Heh - I have yet to see 'good evidence' that these are copies - evidence that isn't explainable by brent's theory. The reverse isn't the case for hauglid.

It's the simultaneous theory informing the evidence. And hauglid et al.'s copying theory is informing the evidence.

mopologetics at it's finest - make it look like the critics are the ones starting with a conclusion, and working backwards. whatever. these dudes will do whatever it takes to make the evidence fit their 'testimony'.

wake me up when something new comes up.

[_Dr. Shades]

Folks, if you find this thread interesting, I highly recommend that you read this thread as well. It puts Brian Hauglid's comments, excerpted in the opening post, into even better perspective than they were before.

[_Gadianton]

Phaedrus,

While I understand and respect your view, I must point out that those who set themselves up as interpretors and expert commentators are in a way, controlling the situation and taking credit for what would be the natural consequences.

[_Droopy]

Embarrassing Metcalf shouldn't' be all that difficult, once everything comes out in the wash and the implicit finally becomes explicit: Metcalf is way overstating his case, and always has been. Metcalf doesn't really have anything approaching substantive evidence supporting his simultaneous dictation theory, and he knows it (which is why the entire things remains always hidden away in the shadows, as we endlessly await "critical editions" of this or that, which, it is always claimed, will finally settle the issue, while grandiose claims of the final destruction of Book of Abraham are shouted from the rooftops).

There is going to be a final showdown between the two sides on this issue, but the end of that is not going to be to the liking of the critics, who will, yet again, have to retreat, regroup, and begin anew.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Phaedrus,

While I understand and respect your view, I must point out that those who set themselves up as interpretors and expert commentators are in a way, controlling the situation and taking credit for what would be the natural consequences.

I don't disagree with you. I do however disagree with implying a quote which isn't there. It's merely inferred by the OP.

Embarrassing Metcalf shouldn't' be all that difficult, once everything comes out in the wash and the implicit finally becomes explicit: Metcalf is way overstating his case, and always has been. Metcalf doesn't really have anything approaching substantive evidence supporting his simultaneous dictation theory, and he knows it (which is why the entire things remains always hidden away in the shadows, as we endlessly await "critical editions" of this or that, which, it is always claimed, will finally settle the issue, while grandiose claims of the final destruction of Book of Abraham are shouted from the rooftops).
There is going to be a final showdown between the two sides on this issue, but the end of that is not going to be to the liking of the critics, who will, yet again, have to retreat, regroup, and begin anew.

It'll be interesting to see where this ends up. From my, albeit cursory, appraisal of the situation I wouldn't bet against Brent's analysis on this one. There is a strong incentive for the apologists to diminish the KEP but from what I've seen their attempts to explain away the evidence seems a bit strained, and wishful thinking.

Phaedrus