I guess demonstrating that the crocodile in early-19thC literature was tied to Pharaoh and thought to be an ancient Egyptian god says nothing about the BoAbr text?!
You haven't engaged anything I wrote yet. All you do is bring up a couple ideas from the 19th century literature. You have yet to demonstrate in any way whatsoever the proof that Joseph Smith studied it and incorporated it. You have yet to demonstrate he literally COULD have gotten the information in that way. You assume he had access to absolutely everything, had the time to research and incorporate it all together. You assume he had all the time in the world to research, write, read, etc., when in fact we KNOW because it's part of the History of the Church (you don't read that much do you...) that he barely had time to breathe, let alone read through a gajillion sources and then incorporate the RIGHT ONES while discarding the rest, in order to interpret the facsimile figures correctly. You simply assume he had it, used it, and used it in a coherent fashion. Like I say, This theme you assume of "oh it's obviously in the air, therefore Joseph Smith got it from there" is terribly weak. It also is against the rules of textual criticism of ancient literature shown by Friedrich Blass in his "Hermeneutic und Kritic." Nibley uses Blass's rules to take the document seriously, and then see if there are parallels. Assuming a modern provenance is precisely what Blass said one CANNOT do with documents which claim to be ancient. Why do you ignore the rules of textual criticism in this case? Is it because of your profound bias against the Book of Abraham, so you believe ignoring all the ancient materials is fine, while merely assuming *ANY* modern parallel is PROOF?! Demonstrate your case, don't simply assume it and think you have won.
You also say that "To reiterate, you're merely bearing your idiosyncratic testimony of what constitutes a scriptural text—again—not enunciating a rigorous method for analyzing such a text."
To which I once again ask, WHO of us two are IGNORING a rigorous examination of the evidence and using the proper textual criticism rules laid down by the absolute world class scholar Friedrich Blass?! Rigorous analysis to you is merely bringing up a few modern parallels and IGNORING everything else. Is *that* impressively rigorous?
Tell you what, I can find MORE ancient parallels than you can modern ones. Would that qualify as "rigorous"? I am curious as to how you define rigorous at the same time ignoring absolutely ANYTHING Nibley ever brought out. I have yet to find *anyone* be more completely rigorous than he was. You may not like his conclusions, but one thing you simply cannot say with any credibility is that he lack rigour!
Edited by e=mc2, 19 April 2010 - 09:07 PM.