BM:
I look forward to examining your bibliography on scriptural exegesis.
Of course, this is the pronounced difference between the two of us: I’ve never pretended to credentials I lack.
And while you're at it, perhaps you could also post Royal Skousen's "bibliography of published articles on Book of Abraham-related issues"—I suspect that it won't take you more than say, zero seconds.
Of course, Skousen’s credentials aren’t in question here, are they? Skousen’s could have never even heard of the Book of Abraham and still have provided an authoritative analysis of the dittograph, based purely in his demonstrated expertise in textual criticism.
[LOL!]
This has really got you worked up, hasn’t it?! Do you really think you want to get into a
vitae pissing contest? And with Skousen of all people?
In fact, while you're still at it, please share with us Brian Hauglid's publications on BoAbr textual criticism. (Hint: I'm sure it won't take you any longer than it did to type Royal's bibliography.)
[As he not-so-subtly attempts to shift the argument to something more favorable to his position.]
As for Hauglid, his publication history on Book of Abraham-related issues is long, varied, and quite impressive on many levels. Simply put, Brian has already assembled a considerable body of work. Though his exposure to the documents is only a fraction of your own (4 years vs. 25+ years), his forthcoming critical edition of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers will represent a
bona fide watershed moment in Book of Abraham studies.
So again, do you
really want to get into a
vitae pissing contest with
anyone?
Do you really think that anyone outside the confines of this sad little message board is going to be convinced or impressed?
Speaking of which:
.
.
.
Chris:
In addition to the two essays at MSS …
Do you think perhaps it would be appropriate for you to identify “MSS” to our humble readers?
Yes, that’s correct, “MSS” refers to Metcalfe’s personal website … the one that has been static for over seven years now. It must, of course, in your mind, constitute quite an impressive publishing venue.
… and has presented at the Ex-Mormon conference.
I’m sure
that’s a line everyone wishes he could have on his vitae.
He has also spent years working on the KEP …
How do
you know? Where is the evidence of this “years” of work?
Edward Ashment, whose essay on the Facsimiles in Sunstone is without peer, and whose work on the KEP led to the proper identification of the scribe of MS 2.
I can only conclude that this line was
deliberately designed to help us understand that Metcalfe has been riding on Ashment’s coattails
all these years. Good job, Chris!
Brent has demonstrated his competence on Book of Abraham issues on numerous occasions.
[He writes with, presumably, a serious and sober look on his face.]
You mean on internet message boards, right? Because otherwise, you have demonstrated NOTHING that has “demonstrated his competence on Book of Abraham issues.”
Brent has also established his credentials as a textual and historical critic, as for example in his absolutely groundbreaking essay on Mosiah Priority.
Speaking of
Twilight Zone moments …
So, Chirs, let me get this straight: in your world, a single essay on a single question is all that is necessary to establish one’s credentials as a textual and historical critic?
Don’t get me wrong, Metcalfe made a good catch with this finding. But
absolutely groundbreaking? Are you really serious?
And sufficient to establish his credentials as a textual and historical critic?
Are you really serious?
Really? That essay was a landmark in the field of Mormon Studies.
[Searching desperately for emoticon that expresses something far beyond “lol”.]
Really? A
”landmark in the field of Mormon Studies”?Wow! Who knew? (Before now, that is.)
Congratulations, young Christopher, your journey is now complete. You have officialy discarded the robes of the academy in favor of the greasy pen of the propagandist.
“…without peer …’
“…absolutely groundbreaking …”
“…a landmark …”
All I can say is: "Sad."