Three things

[_harmony]

If someone could point out where a respected Egyptologist wrote something that shows approval of Dr Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics, I'd appreciate it.

I have no doubt Dr Gee is respected by his peers for his knowledge of Egyptology. I'd like to see something from his Egyptologist peers that shows they respect his Book of Abraham apologetics.

Thanks in advance.

Besides Kerry Muhlestein and John Gee, I don't know of any Egyptologists who give a rat's ass about Book of Abraham apologetics.

What logical conclusions do you suppose you can draw from that fact, Dissonance?

Give it your best shot.

That if the Book of Abraham was what the church claims it is, no respected Egyptologist would be ignorant of it, for one thing. Studying it would be part of every Egyptology curriculum. Experts in the Book of Abraham could write their own contracts at schools like Yale and U of Chicago.

Instead... we have none that are even interested, unless they're already Mormon. Which tells me the experts may be respectful of Gee's Egyptology, but they give no support to any of his apologetics.

You, of course, are free to hide your head where there is no light. We're very tolerant of that activity here.

[_Brackite]

Hello William,

.
.
Brackite:

[Kissassman-like cut-and-paste of Robert Ritner’s CV.]

Hey, Brackite, I’ve got a question for you: Are KEPA #2 and #3 simultaneously-created transcriptions of Joseph Smith’s original oral dictation of the first 1½ chapters of the Book of Abraham? If you answer yes, how do you know?

I will Answer that with what the Poster Named 'Who Knows' stated on this subject:

- The characters next to the text in the KEP (whether put there by the scribes on their own, or at Joseph Smith's direction) come directly from the BOB - IN ORDER no less. In the very least - Joseph Smith's personal scribes for the translation of the Book of Abraham felt that the Book of Abraham came from the BOB.

Link: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=656

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

I'm disinclined to use "trounced" (Schryver's term) to describe my correcting Brian Hauglid (or his doppelganger Will Schryver), but I have provided pause for thought—and there is much more pause to come.

I look forward to Will's elaboration "in coming weeks" since I have yet to see a coherent theory from either Will or Brian of the BoAbr manuscript tradition.

Best regards,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hey, Will---

Have you ever had an dealings with Gee? Have you ever spoken to him, or corresponded with him?

Why don’t you consult one of your legion of confidential informants? Surely they will know the answer to this question.

In the meantime, you can imagine that John wouldn’t know me from … well … Abraham.

Okay. That's pretty much what I thought. You see, I think we can observe a sort of "diminishing echo" effect: just as Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics are utterly ignored in the world of serious Egyptology scholarship, your Book of Abraham "scholarship" is utterly ignored in the world of "serious" Book of Abraham apologetics. And one sort of has to wonder why this is. Gee's endless whining makes you think that he'd be glad for any help he could get, even if it did come from you.

[_William Schryver]

Hey, Brackite, I’ve got a question for you: Are KEPA #2 and #3 simultaneously-created transcriptions of Joseph Smith’s original oral dictation of the first 1½ chapters of the Book of Abraham? If you answer yes, how do you know?

Brackite:

I will Answer that with what the Poster Named 'Who Knows' stated on this subject:

- The characters next to the text in the KEP (whether put there by the scribes on their own, or at Joseph Smith's direction) come directly from the BOB - IN ORDER no less. In the very least - Joseph Smith's personal scribes for the translation of the Book of Abraham felt that the Book of Abraham came from the BOB.

So, let me get this straight, Brackite, you know that KEPA #2 and #3 are simultaneously-created transcriptions of Joseph Smith’s original oral dictation of the first 1½ chapters of the Book of Abraham because of the analysis of an anonymous message board poster going by the moniker "Who Knows"?

That's some ponderous authority you've got backing you up there.

[_William Schryver]

Hi folks,

I'm disinclined to use "trounced" (Schryver's term) to describe my correcting Brian Hauglid (or his doppelganger Will Schryver) ...

"Trounced" was my term? I don't think so, Brent. I think you've permitted yourself to get a bit confused about the progression of this thread. Perhaps you should review it.

However, your prompt arrival has once again confirmed something I've always known.

You continue:

I look forward to Will's elaboration "in coming weeks" since I have yet to see a coherent theory from either Will or Brian of the BoAbr manuscript tradition.

As we also look forward to your long-promised but never-delivered "coherent theory of the "BoAbr manuscript tradition."

In any event, I will shortly provide a synopsis of my findings versus your presumed opinions of the same questions. I won't be posting it here, of course. There is no serious discussion to be had in this venue.

And when I do post it, I have serious doubts that you'll venture into the fray. At least if your recent reluctance to defend a position -- any position -- is any indication.

Nevertheless, you are, as always, welcome.
.
.
.
And lest anyone misunderstand, I want it known that I consider Brent Lee Metcalfe to be a brilliant man in many respects. As an autodidact, I consider him as talented a specimen as I have ever known. That said, he remains -- in my judgment -- a completely un-demonstrated talent, and an unknown quantity when it comes to Book of Abraham studies. He has failed to produce anything approaching scholarly articulation of his analysis, despite his quarter-century of opportunity.

When and if he does so, perhaps then we'll have something to discuss.

[_William Schryver]

Scrotch:

Gee's endless whining makes you think that he'd be glad for any help he could get, even if it did come from you.

Gee's "endless whining"?

Oh, Scrotch, you are one-of-a-kind, in your twisted kind of way.

As far as my "help" is concerned, my modest contributions have been recognized in those places where it matters.

It remains to be seen if they can be contradicted.

I won't look for that to happen here.

[_Kishkumen]

Tell you the truth, you disappoint me with this statement from Coenen. Sure, Coenen is perfectly correct when he says, “concluding that a record of Abraham … was once attached to the Smith papyri is an assertion not based upon widely accepted Egyptological analysis.”

As well might he have said, “concluding that an angel delivered ancient gold plates to someone for translation is an assertion not based upon widely accepted historical analysis.”

And?

Note that Willy has conveniently elided the key section of this quote ("or any other text foreign to Ptolemaic Egyptian funerary or liturgical practice"), which suggests that the existence of such an attached text would make that scroll completely unique. This is actually something quite different from concluding that an angel delivered ancient gold plates to someone. Why? Because there is no supernatural or miraculous aspect of the claim that an Abraham text was attached to the existing papyri. Either this kind of packaging of texts occurred or it didn't. Using other extant collections as a means of testing that hypothesis is perfectly acceptable method and is probably closer to "widely accepted Egyptological analysis" than assuming that something must be the case absent compelling corroborating evidence or close parallel example.

But it says nothing about John’s assertions concerning the length of the scrolls, or whether or not there is evidence of multiple ink stocks being used in the KEPA documents, or any other argument made by him or others relevant to the exclusively Mormon-related documents.

It does say that Gee seems to have no reasonable justification for supposing that biographical narratives about Jewish heroes were attached to Egyptian funerary documents, which you implicitly admit is a problem, regardless of the actual length of the scroll. One first has to know what was on the missing text before it becomes useful in determining whether Smith was translating the Abraham narrative from it and doing so accurately. A missing text could just as well be more Ptolemaic funerary material and have nothing to do with Smith's Abraham narrative at all.

Kissassman:

Ouch. There's that evidence thing again.

You do well to stick with your strong suit: shameless sycophantic fawning in lieu of any actual knowledge of the subject matter.

I would tell you to stick to your strong suit, but you do quite well at legerdemain and misdirection when you lack answers to simple questions or find the answers too embarrassing. Bravo to you, sir. Bravo.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scrotch:

Gee's endless whining makes you think that he'd be glad for any help he could get, even if it did come from you.

Gee's "endless whining"?

Oh, Scrotch, you are one-of-a-kind, in your twisted kind of way.

As far as my "help" is concerned, my modest contributions have been recognized in those places where it matters.

Where? The MADboard? Also: are you going to answer my question about your interactions w/ Gee? Or are you too afraid to admit the truth in public?

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

I stand troun... er... corrected.

Mea culpa.

I look forward to your presentation (wherever it may appear) of a coherent, comprehensive model for the BoAbr manuscript tradition.

My best,

</brent>

Edit: Fixed a typo.

http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown