The Great Debate

[_Kevin Graham]

There will never be a great debate over this issue. They simply can't afford one.

Besides, any debate of any kind would never include William Schryver. The man simply doesn't know enough about the subject. He's the Glenn Beck of the Book of Abraham.

[_Frank J Sheed]

This is all very interesting. But I have a question: did you let any faithful LDS experts review your work? Has Jeff Lindsay seen it? I have read a number of things about the Book of Abraham papyrus on his site, and his reasoning seems pretty dang persuasive to me, and he concludes that there was a large amount of the papyrus missing. Do you answer Lindsay's claims specifically in your paper?

[_MrStakhanovite]

f'n lol

[_thews]

This is all very interesting. But I have a question: did you let any faithful LDS experts review your work? Has Jeff Lindsay seen it? I have read a number of things about the Book of Abraham papyrus on his site, and his reasoning seems pretty dang persuasive to me, and he concludes that there was a large amount of the papyrus missing. Do you answer Lindsay's claims specifically in your paper?

Please post what you believe is persuasive and link its source.

[_thews]

The latest issue of JWHA Journal includes my paper, "'That Which Is Lost': Assessing the State of Preservation of the Joseph Smith Papyri." This is a kind of summary statement of the case against the missing papyrus theory. I'd be happy to send a copy to anyone who's interested.

Don't you have a blog or a website that can post it?

[_Kevin Graham]

But I have a question: did you let any faithful LDS experts review your work?

Yes, and he thought it was wonderful.

Has Jeff Lindsay seen it?

Why would he show it to an pop-apologist who has no apparent expertise in this subject? In fact, virtually everything Lindsay has said on this subject is wrong.

I have read a number of things about the Book of Abraham papyrus on his site, and his reasoning seems pretty dang persuasive to me, and he concludes that there was a large amount of the papyrus missing. Do you answer Lindsay's claims specifically in your paper?

Lindsay merely regurgitates standard claims from the apologetic front, including stuff from Gee, Rhodes and for a brief time, Hauglid. He isn't among those coming up with original arguments on his own. Not sure why anyone would think this.

[_CaliforniaKid]

This is all very interesting. But I have a question: did you let any faithful LDS experts review your work? Has Jeff Lindsay seen it? I have read a number of things about the Book of Abraham papyrus on his site, and his reasoning seems pretty dang persuasive to me, and he concludes that there was a large amount of the papyrus missing. Do you answer Lindsay's claims specifically in your paper?

The earliest version of this paper called out certain LDS apologists by name and directly refuted their claims, but I toned that down in the final draft because I wanted to keep the focus on the issues, and I also felt that some of the apologetic stuff just isn't worth responding to.

However, the paper does still answer several of the most common apologetic arguments.

I like Jeff Lindsay a lot, but I think on this issue he hasn't really done his homework. He's relied on a few other big-name apologists whose work stinketh severely. Of all the apologetics produced by LDS scholars, Book of Abraham apologetics are by far the worst.

As for whether any faithful LDS reviewed my work, the answer is yes. The paper was rejected by two Journal of Mormon History reviewers who seemed to be FARMS apologists (including one who doesn't like me very much), and then a revised version was accepted by four or five members of the JWHA Journal review board. In addition to these formal reviewers, I also sent the paper to several friends, including apologist Ed Goble, who liked it and agreed with it.

[_Mortal Man]

The earliest version of this paper called out certain LDS apologists by name and directly refuted their claims, but I toned that down in the final draft because I wanted to keep the focus on the issues, and I also felt that some of the apologetic stuff just isn't worth responding to.

However, the paper does still answer several of the most common apologetic arguments.

I like Jeff Lindsay a lot, but I think on this issue he hasn't really done his homework. He's relied on a few other big-name apologists whose work stinketh severely. Of all the apologetics produced by LDS scholars, Book of Abraham apologetics are by far the worst.

As for whether any faithful LDS reviewed my work, the answer is yes. The paper was rejected by two Journal of Mormon History reviewers who seemed to be FARMS apologists (including one who doesn't like me very much), and then a revised version was accepted by four or five members of the JWHA Journal review board. In addition to these formal reviewers, I also sent the paper to several friends, including apologist Ed Goble, who liked it and agreed with it.

But Chris, did you bother to address Kerry Muhlestein's argument?

Was the “long roll” long enough to contain both the Book of Breathings and the text of the Book of Abraham? While it is difficult to reconstruct the original length of the scrolls, the most accurate attempt to do so comes from John Gee’s application of a formula used by other Egyptologists by which the circumference of the roll and how tightly it was wound can be used to calculate the original length of a papyrus roll.[19] Employing this mathematical formula to the long scroll from which Facsimile 1 was cut, Gee has estimated its length at forty-one feet.[20] If this calculation is correct, the scroll was undoubtedly long enough to contain the Book of Breathings, the Book of Abraham, and other texts. Long scrolls were not unusual in Egypt in this time period.[21] While it was common for papyrus scrolls to be written on both sides, we cannot currently know if this was the case with the “long roll.” If it was, then according to the formulaic calculation there could be as much as eighty-two feet of writings on this scroll. Long scrolls like this typically contained a variety of texts.

He makes a pretty strong case here.

[_MsJack]

Don't you have a blog or a website that can post it?

He probably signed over the rights to the paper to JWHA, which means only they can post it in public. The best Chris can do is distribute it in private.

[_Kevin Graham]

This is all very interesting. But I have a question: did you let any faithful LDS experts review your work? Has Jeff Lindsay seen it? I have read a number of things about the Book of Abraham papyrus on his site, and his reasoning seems pretty dang persuasive to me, and he concludes that there was a large amount of the papyrus missing. Do you answer Lindsay's claims specifically in your paper?

The earliest version of this paper called out certain LDS apologists by name and directly refuted their claims, but I toned that down in the final draft because I wanted to keep the focus on the issues, and I also felt that some of the apologetic stuff just isn't worth responding to.

However, the paper does still answer several of the most common apologetic arguments.

I like Jeff Lindsay a lot, but I think on this issue he hasn't really done his homework. He's relied on a few other big-name apologists whose work stinketh severely. Of all the apologetics produced by LDS scholars, Book of Abraham apologetics are by far the worst.

As for whether any faithful LDS reviewed my work, the answer is yes. The paper was rejected by two Journal of Mormon History reviewers who seemed to be FARMS apologists (including one who doesn't like me very much), and then a revised version was accepted by four or five members of the JWHA Journal review board. In addition to these formal reviewers, I also sent the paper to several friends, including apologist Ed Goble, who liked it and agreed with it.

Now that is pretty damn funny, considering all the grief folks have been giving us over Will Schryver's rejection at NAMI. The theory goes that Will was attacked because we didn't want his publication to be realized. We were all raked over the coals for this, even though it is false. And here we see Chris Smith's scholarly and rather innocuous publication was held up by a couple of people, simply because they were apologists who didn't like his refutations of their fellow apologists. Heelarious.