Book of Abraham and the Latest Apologetics

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

All I can say is: "Sad."

Your sinking depression aside, my essay was influential enough to help Royal Skousen recalibrate his position on the order in which the BoMor was dictated (see here). Prior to my essay, Royal had told me that text-critical evidence from the BoMor manuscripts supported 1 Nephi priority. Now Royal Skousen evidently questions his interpretation of the text-critical evidence, based in part on my modest essay.

If it would lift you from your slump, given your seeming interminable stream of rants I'm willing to concede that you are without peer.

Ciao,

</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

[_Yong Xi]

Will's publications are limited to his branding of CIRCLE J RANCH on each of his milking bulls.

[_Calculus Crusader]

At any rate, neither Hauglid nor Gee nor Skousen nor anyone else who has academic credentials has anything whatsoever to gain from conversing with you about these matters, whether on a message board or on some "panel" that you propose. They continue to do what normal scholars do: they research, write, and publish.

Their "research" concerning the alleged authenticity of the Book of Abraham would be laughed to scorn outside of the intellectually inbred cocoon of BYU.

[_Kevin Graham]

Your sinking depression aside, my essay was influential enough to help Royal Skousen recalibrate his position on the order in which the BoMor was dictated (see here). Prior to my essay, Royal had told me that text-critical evidence from the BoMor manuscripts supported 1 Nephi priority. Now Royal Skousen evidently questions his interpretation of the text-critical evidence, based in part on my modest essay.

Check, and mate, yet again.

[_harmony]

Their "research" concerning the alleged authenticity of the Book of Abraham would be laughed to scorn outside of the intellectually inbred cocoon of BYU.

Standing outside the fire and taking potshots doesn't do much for your credibility, CC. Either engage or not; posts like this one are worthless.

[_William Schryver]

Trevor:

Here we have someone who has "0" publications …

Which has been, quite precisely, my entire point.

(Have you been paying any attention at all?)

When it comes to formal Book of Abraham-related academic publications, Metcalfe and I are undeniably equals. Nothing on this thread has served to dispute that fact.

… and how much formal education?

For the record, I did not finish my undergraduate work at the University of Utah, majoring in Middle East Studies with a Hebrew emphasis. My accomplishments were limited to an award as “Middle East Studies Student of the Year” and a scholarship for a semester at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

I quit early to pursue a lucrative career in software development, in which occupation I remain to this day. (Yes, I admit it: I gave up a possibly respectable career in academia in favor of filthy mammon.)

… Will [is] clearly the least qualified person, using a combination of academic experience and publications as a standard, among the Book of Abraham scholars.

Absolutely correct.

However, the point you seem to miss is that my “academic experience and publications” in Book of Abraham studies are exactly equal to Metcalfe’s. Both of us are in the same category of “amateur” when compared to the bona fide Book of Abraham scholars.

You also seem to consistently neglect the other very pertinent point to be made: I am the only amateur in the world, at present, who possesses high-resolution digital scans of the relevant documents, which I have now had in my possession for almost three years, and to which I have dedicated a concerted amount of study, while in continuous consultation with the team of qualified scholars who have been studying the Kirtland Egyptian Papers for the past four years. Funny how that quite relevant point is always conveniently ignored. Why is that, do you suppose?

In short, here we have a guy who has no bibliography and no formal credentials (even a BA?) in any of the related subject matter who comes to crow about what idiots Brent and Chris are.

I do not personally believe, nor have I ever written anything on this thread or any other that would suggest that I consider Brent Metcalfe and Christopher Smith “idiots.” Quite to the contrary, I have expressed a sincere admiration for Metcalfe’s quite apparent intellect and autodidactic aptitude, as well as Smith’s quite apparent intellect and his academic achievements.

That doesn’t change the fact that neither has qualifications that exceed my own in terms of Book of Abraham studies, and Smith has no access to quality images of the documents.

Facts are stubborn, no matter how much you people insist on ignoring them.

All he can do is talk about his future achievements as vetted by a group of guys, who, let's get real here, would have had a very difficult time obtaining tenure at a top research institution.

An interesting opinion you have of Skousen, Gee, Hauglid, and Hamblin (and the, as yet unnamed, remaining members of the KEP team). I’m doubtful as to its relative weight in academic circles, and I’m persuaded that it is anything but a common opinion among their respective colleagues.

Indeed, I have good reason to believe (just to provide a current example) that the British Museum probably felt it had good cause to invite Professor John Gee to speak at its upcoming Egyptology meetings. But hey, what do I know? It could very well be that the scholars at the British Museum are, at best, closet LDS apologists and, at worst, ignorant and inept.
.
.
.
Metcalfe:

… my essay was influential enough to help Royal Skousen recalibrate his position on the order in which the BoMor was dictated (see here). Prior to my essay, Royal had told me that text-critical evidence from the BoMor manuscripts supported 1 Nephi priority. Now Royal Skousen evidently questions his interpretation of the text-critical evidence, based in part on my modest essay.

I believe I’ve already singled out for commendation your single contribution to the world of textual/historical criticism, such as it is, and notwithstanding it being essentially irrelevant in terms of our specific discussion.

Would you prefer me to use more enthusiastic adjectives in the future when describing your so-called “landmark in the field of Mormon Studies”? Why don’t you provide me a short list of, let’s say, three preferred adjectives.

… I'm willing to concede that you are without peer.

With that one notable exception, of course.

Look at the bright side, though: My needling you has caused you to retreat from your previously-expressed intent of posting your KEP transcriptions and accompanying text-criticial annotations in a place where they might have been observed and noted, and thereby subject to serious scholarly criticism. You’ve probably saved yourself a boat load of eventual grief by quickly reverting to your momentarily-shaky dedication to risk-avoidance.

And, despite what one would think are quite favorable prospects for silencing me and exalting yourself at the same time, you’ve now apparently retreated from your previously-expressed intent of responding to my text-critical arguments concerning the dittograph on page #4 of KEPA #2. I’m sure your many acolytes here and elsewhere are sorely disappointed to see you shrink away from that ripe opportunity.

Oh, well, I will still show my lack of “testicular fortitude” and write up my response to your questions:

Brent Metcalfe:
... you should have no problem answering the questions I asked Royal and Brian:

• What was the specific text-critical evidence in manuscripts 1a (fldr. 2), 1b (fldr. 3), and 2 (fldr. 1) that convinced you that the repetitive ending in ms. 1a is "definitely a question of visual dittography arising from copying from another manuscript ... [a 'mistake' that] can definitely occur when someone is coming back to copying after some delay," and that Will's "analysis seems perfectly correct"?
  
• Can you provide two or three decisive examples of scribal "errors" that in your judgment "readily occur in a second copying" which involve the duplication of over 100 words?

Schryver also says that Royal has an analysis of the dittograph that “will be published in the near future.” Where and when will this analysis be published?

In my own view, dittography is a scribal error; and given my analysis, I am highly skeptical that the redundant text on page 4 of ms. 1a (fldr. 2) can be properly classified as dittography.

Brian graciously replied, though he didn't address my questions specifically. Royal's Inbox is evidently a selective black hole.

I look forward to your documented answers.

Whether or not you’ll still “look forward” to my responses remains to be determined.

But it is, no doubt, fortunate for me that you will not add to my overwhelming public humiliation by then rebutting each of my arguments in turn.

For that, I am immensely grateful.
.
.
.
[Gone looking for my wife to spell-check my post … and to meekly beg her to increase my weekly allowance. ]
.
.
.
Ok, with an extra Abe Lincoln in my wallet, and my grammar and spelling corrected, I'm ready to click "Submit" now.

[_harmony]

An interesting opinion you have of Skousen, Gee, Hauglid, and Hamblin (and the, as yet unnamed, remaining members of the KEP team). I’m doubtful as to its relative weight in academic circles, and I’m persuaded that it is anything but a common opinion among their respective colleagues.

The common opinion among their respective colleagues is likely that they are competent in their chosen field, but totally off the map when they engage in their apologetics. If that were not the case, you'd be able to give us a short list of those respective colleagues who are totally supportive of their apologetics... and you have yet to provide that list, despite repeated requests from various posters here.

Indeed, I have good reason to believe (just to provide a current example) that the British Museum probably felt it had good cause to invite Professor John Gee to speak at its upcoming Egyptology meetings. But hey, what do I know? It could very well be that the scholars at the British Museum are, at best, closet LDS apologists and, at worst, ignorant and inept.

So you're saying the British Museum has invited Prof Gee to speak at its upcoming Egyptology meetings about his Book of Abraham apologetics? Pardon me if I require proof. Let's see the agenda, and the name of the speech that Prof Gee is going to deliver. Because I think it's much more likely that the British Museum has invited Prof Gee to speak at their Egyptology meetings about Egyptology.

[_William Schryver]

harmony:

The common opinion among their respective colleagues is likely that they are competent in their chosen field, but totally off the map when they engage in their apologetics.

The only “likely” thing is that people not interested in LDS apologetics would be ignorant of such pursuits as practiced by their friends and colleagues.

I, for one, have seen no indication that any of Gee’s colleagues are aware of or interested in his record in relation to LDS apologetics, with the possible exception of Robert Ritner, who expressed serious doubts about Gee’s application of Hoffmann’s formula for calculating the length of the scroll of Horos. Too bad for Ritner that recent developments have rendered his opinion not only moot, but outright wrong. (I reckon that’ll learn him to stick his nose in things he knows little about, like calculus.)

So you're saying the British Museum has invited Prof Gee to speak at its upcoming Egyptology meetings about his Book of Abraham apologetics?

I never mentioned at all the topic of John’s upcoming presentation at the British Museum.

However, I am cognizant of the fact that several of his ostensibly purely “Egyptological” presentations at scholarly conferences do, in fact, often have distinct relationships to his Book of Abraham apologetics.

[Brick upon brick … and steady as she goes …]

Pardon me if I require proof.

I’m afraid you’ll need to seek pardon from another source for that particular weakness.

Let's see the agenda, and the name of the speech that Prof Gee is going to deliver. Because I think it's much more likely that the British Museum has invited Prof Gee to speak at their Egyptology meetings about Egyptology.

I think I’m quite content to let you do your own homework, as well as draw your own conclusions in the safe security of your abject ignorance.

That said, I have posted on this very thread (if I’m not mistaken) the titles and venues of at least two of Professor Gee’s recent presentations at Egyptological gatherings. Anyone with sincere interest is free to seek enlightenment.

[_harmony]

harmony:

The common opinion among their respective colleagues is likely that they are competent in their chosen field, but totally off the map when they engage in their apologetics.

The only “likely” thing is that people not interested in LDS apologetics would be ignorant of such pursuits as practiced by their friends and colleagues.

I, for one, have seen no indication that any of Gee’s colleagues are aware of or interested in his record in relation to LDS apologetics, with the possible exception of Robert Ritner, who expressed serious doubts about Gee’s application of Hoffmann’s formula for calculating the length of the scroll of Horos. Too bad for Ritner that recent developments have rendered his opinion not only moot, but outright wrong. (I reckon that’ll learn him to stick his nose in things he knows little about, like calculus.)

So you're saying the British Museum has invited Prof Gee to speak at its upcoming Egyptology meetings about his Book of Abraham apologetics?

I never mentioned at all the topic of John’s upcoming presentation at the British Museum.

However, I am cognizant of the fact that several of his ostensibly purely “Egyptological” presentations at scholarly conferences do, in fact, often have distinct relationships to his Book of Abraham apologetics.

[Brick upon brick … and steady as she goes …]

Pardon me if I require proof.

I’m afraid you’ll need to seek pardon from another source for that particular weakness.

Let's see the agenda, and the name of the speech that Prof Gee is going to deliver. Because I think it's much more likely that the British Museum has invited Prof Gee to speak at their Egyptology meetings about Egyptology.
I think I’m quite content to let you do your own homework, as well as draw your own conclusions in the safe security of your abject ignorance.

That said, I have posted on this very thread (if I’m not mistaken) the titles and venues of at least two of Professor Gee’s recent presentations at Egyptological gatherings. Anyone with sincere interest is free to seek enlightenment.

In other words, you have nothing, William. Bold statements full of only hot air.

[_William Schryver]

In other words, you have nothing, William. Bold statements full of only hot air.

In your eminently informed opinion, apparently so.