Three things

[_Dr. Shades]

• Gee's assertion that the characters in the left margin were placed there after the English text has not borne scrutiny, and
• Gee's assertion that the original papyrii length between Facsimile #1 and Facsimile #3 was 28 feet (I believe) has also not borne scrutiny.

Really?

Yes.

Demonstrate it. Aside from message board posters, who has scrutinized either of these assertions? Where can I read about it?

Regarding the first point, I don't know if Brent Metcalfe counts as a "message board poster," since he's a published author, but on ZLMB he gave several scans and close-ups of the ink, brushstrokes, etc. which proved that the Egyptian characters were written first and the English translation written second, contra Gee. Hopefully he still has a link to it or can re-post it here for us.

Regarding the second point, Robert Ritner is not a message board poster. He informed us laymen that the vaunted 28 feet of papyrus referred to an uncut sheet from which several scrolls were to be produced, not a final scroll ready for the heiroglyphs, contra Gee.

So that's two points of Gee's that have proven to be counterfactual.

Thank you for playing.

[_William Schryver]

Scrotch:

Where? The MADboard?

I was not thinking of the MAD board when I said, “… my modest contributions have been recognized in those places where it matters.”

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

Scrotch, buddy, I literally tremble in your presence.

As for my “interactions w/Gee”, I’ve already told you to appeal to your army of confidential informants. Absent the intelligence they can provide you, you’ll be entirely free to “imagine that John wouldn’t know me from … well … Abraham.”
.
.
.
Metcalfe:

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

I have yet to promise such a thing.

But I don’t rule it out.

I have, however, promised the following, and I will deliver it shortly:

… I will shortly provide a synopsis of my findings versus your presumed opinions of the same questions.

Of course, you know exactly what “findings” I’m talking about: the later, interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12 in KEPA #2, and the dittograph on page 4 of the same document.

You have yet to offer any coherent response to these findings, despite my having articulated and continued to expand upon them on numerous occasions.

Why is that?

[_Yong Xi]

Even if the Book of Abraham were true, (which I don't believe) a quick examination of references to the Book of Abraham from the last general conference reveals but a single reference made by Elder Eyring. It appears that C.S. Lewis is quoted more often. Some things that are true must not be very useful.

Furthermore, I cannot find a single general conference talk given by a sitting Church President that emphasizes the Book of Abraham. I find it odd that the Lord would produce miraculous means for the coming forth of the Book of Abraham and allow his mouthpiece to virtually ignore it in modern times. I can only assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the Book of Abraham is either irrelevant or significantly less "correct" than the Book of Mormon. For all intents and purposes, the writings of the great prophet of the Hebrews has been shelved.

When will the Church share with the rest of the world this great find and priceless historical artifact? When will non-lds scholars be allowed to examine it? When can I see it? Has it ever been on public display? I would love to see a traveling exhibit featuring the papyrus.

Perhaps, the church does not want to cast pearls before swine (a.k.a. the public).

[_harmony]

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

I don't think helping your wife in the kitchen counts for much, as far as the Book of Abraham discussion is concerned, Will. Nothing else you've done is at all recognizable.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Why is that?

Because—at the risk of sounding uncharitable—I consider your input ancillary at best.

For instance, when I noted that your transcription "commencement of this record" was incorrect ("record" should be "reccord") you adamantly objected; when I corrected the same error made by Brian, he graciously thanked me.

Why? Because those who are intimately familiar with Frederick G. Williams' orthography know that he frequently (and mistakenly) used cc in words where c is pronounced k. This is the text-critical point that I said was totally lost on you. (In retrospect, I could have made my observation less confrontational.)

Best wishes,

</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

[_CaliforniaKid]

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.”

[...]

What does that say about Gee’s specific arguments concerning the KEP or the JSP? Well, obviously nothing. Coenen is actually taking a politically and scholarly prudent posture here. He’s to be commended for not going as far as Ritner has on occasion in making assertions that exceed his possible knowledge.

You evidently did not read the statement very carefully. Coenen was responding to Gee's argument that there are Egyptological precedents for non-funerary, unrelated narrative texts like the Book of Abraham to appear on the same roll as a funerary document. Coenen is saying that this argument is specious because all of Gee's precedents involve Ptolemaic Egyptian ritual texts that have been adapted for a funerary purpose. There is no precedent for a non-funerary narrative text alien to Ptolemaic Egypt to appear alongside a funerary text. Thus, Coenen denies that Gee's argument meets the standards of "widely-accepted Egyptological analysis."

Cheers,

-Chris

[_Kishkumen]

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

Authority being the most important thing in Schryverworld.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

I should clarify further that Williams' misspellings with cc in lieu of c most often occur in words where folks are prone to vocalize a medial c twice (words like second or record).

My best,

</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

[The Stig]

Hi Will,

Why is that?

Because—at the risk of sounding uncharitable—I consider your input ancillary at best.

For instance, when I noted that your transcription "commencement of this record" was incorrect ("record" should be "reccord") you adamantly objected; when I corrected the same error made by Brian, he graciously thanked me.

Why? Because those who are intimately familiar with Frederick G. Williams' orthography know that he frequently (and mistakenly) used cc in words where c is pronounced k. This is the text-critical point that I said was totally lost on you. (In retrospect, I could have made my observation less confrontational.)

Best wishes,

</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

I don't have a problem with acceding on the point of the two "cc"s. It wasn't an important point back then. It still isn't. To this day, I am not entirely persuaded that it isn't just an eccentricity in Williams' handwriting, but I'm cool with it either way. I believe I expressed as much "way back when." I would still like to have a few more samples of Williams' handwriting to examine before I pronounce myself fully convinced, but I'm willing to yield to the combined opinions of you and Brian and this particular point. There is, I would think, room for conflicting opinions on many of the questions raised by these documents.

As for my "ancillary input," I'm afraid I must say that I don't believe you are now or ever have been in a position to assess what I have done. And, considering the following known facts, perhaps you should leave open the possibility that my "input" has been marginally more significant than you are wont to believe:

• I have high-resolution scans of the relevant documents that are at least the equal of your photographs. I have had them for almost three years and have made them the focus of periods of intense study.
• I have been in the circle of discussion occurring between others who are also examining the documents.
• To date, at least two findings which originated with my observations (the large dittograph and the insertion at Abr. 1:12) have been accepted by the extended group of analysts, and are considered to be "significant."
• I made other initial observations (in late 2006) that may prove very significant as soon as they can be confirmed by the ongoing forensic lab work. (I'm not the only one to note this particular finding, but I do believe I was the first to argue it with you.)
• These findings impact directly (and negatively) upon the proposed theory of simultaneous transcripts of an oral dictation.

There is more I might say, but that will suffice for the present.

So, my reluctant adversary, you may very well consider my input insignificant, but you do so at the peril of continuing to fall further behind in terms of a rapidly-evolving discussion.
.
.
.
Edited for clarification.

[_harmony]

... a rapidly-evolving discussion.

Decades and decades is "rapidly evolving"?