72 replies to this topic

[gtaggart]

Mortal Man, on 16 April 2010 - 11:56 PM, said:

Incidentally, I like Dan's crafty phraseology.


Note his strategically placed "this" along with "Chaldea" in quotes. If he'd have said "Chaldea was under stong Egyptian infuence" the critics would have pounced on his failure to recognize the anachronism. Alternatively, if he'd have explicitly acknowledged the nonexistence of Chaldea in Abraham's time, he would have alarmed thousands of innocent Latter-day Saints (plus he never would have gotten it past the editors). Through careful wordsmithing however, he's able to just slip through without arousing the suspicions of either side.

Bravo

Or maybe the critics would have read K.A. Kitchen (the non-Mormon, doesn't-have-a-dog-in-this-fight, no-defender-of-the-Book-of-Abraham, Personal and Brunner Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics, and Oriental Studies, University of Liverpool, and author of On the Realiability of the Old Testament), who wrote in same:

Quote

"Ur of the Chaldees" is undoubtedly to be identified with the famous ancient city of Ur in south Babylonia (south Iraq), now Tell el-Muqayyar, and not with sundry Ur(a)s (or Urfa) in northern Mesopotamia. "Chaldees" is a qualification of later date than the  pre-Mosaic period; it may have been added between 1000 and 500, precisely to distinguish the patriarchal Ur from possible northern counterparts. The Kaldu people . . . lived in south Babylonia, probably from the late second millennium onward--use of their name indicates clearly a belief in a southern location for biblical Ur in the first millennium (p. 316).

Given that the JSP apparently date to the Ptolemaic Period (332-30 B.C.), exactly what is the problem now? (Guide, Gee. p. 27)

By the way, Kitchen goes on to write,

Quote

Thus the visits by an Abraham or a Jacob to a pharaoh at an East Delta palace are only feasible in Egyptian terms within circa 1970-1540, if they are not to turned into contemporaries of Moses! . . . Suffice it to say that the pharoahs were commonly partial to attractive foreign ladies, as finds and texts for the Middle and New Kingdom attest. And Pharaoh's detailing men to escort Abraham out of Egypt is the reverse pendant to an earlier king's detailing men to escort the returning courtier Sinuhe back into Egypt (ca. 1850) (p. 319) (italics in the original).

Edited to add a comma.

Edited by gtaggart, 17 April 2010 - 09:14 AM.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

Sorry for the delayed response—work and domestic commitments have taken priority (plus Brian and I took our exchange offline, and his input is what I was most interested in).



Hi Will,

Evidently we're talking past each other.

My point is fairly simple: "god of Pharaoh" (Abr. 1:6, 17) is not grammatically equivalent to "god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (Abr. 1:13) yet this is precisely what the text seems to imply, thus posing an exegetical problem for any interpretation of these pericopae.

Moving on...

The notion that Parrish copied "Koash" in BA² (fldr. 1 [your Ab4]) from a no longer extant document is vitiated by the text-critical evidence that inextricably entwines BA² (fldr. 1 [your Ab4]) with Parrish's earlier BA^1b (fldr. 3 [your Ab3(?)])—a manuscript that omits "Koash."

If you feel otherwise, I welcome rigorous argumentation that Parrish copied a transcription other than his BA^1b (fldr. 3 [your Ab3(?)]).

Good luck.



Hi Kerry,

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.

So, I've never engaged the text of the BoAbr?

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?!

I'm content to let our readers decide.



My best,

</brent>



http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 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

[e=mc2]

Brent:
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?!

Kerry:
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.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for your reply and your patience.

If I get some playtime later tonight or tomorrow, I'll post a distillation of evidence that persuades me your defense for JS's translating prowess is inherently inadequate, perhaps even self-refuting.

All the best,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 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

[e=mc2]

Brent Metcalfe, on 20 April 2010 - 05:52 PM, said:

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for your reply and your patience.

If I get some playtime later tonight or tomorrow, I'll post a distillation of evidence that persuades me your defense for JS's translating prowess is inherently inadequate, perhaps even self-refuting.

All the best,

</brent>

No problem....There is no race here. I doubt seriously what I say is self-refuting, nor the proper scholarly methods I am adapting (the tried and true accurate ways to explore ancient documents) is contradictory at all. I believe it is thou who puts the cart before the horse, but we shall see. Have a great day.


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 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

[William Schryver]

Metcalfe:

Quote

Evidently we're talking past each other.

We do have somewhat of a history of doing that.  Perhaps we can both endeavor to mitigate that problem.

Quote

My point is fairly simple: "god of Pharaoh" (Abr. 1:6, 17) is not grammatically equivalent to "god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (Abr. 1:13) yet this is precisely what the text seems to imply, thus posing an exegetical problem for any interpretation of these pericopae.

I understand that you believe this is what the text seems to imply.  I do not agree with your perception of the “seeming implication.”  Indeed, I think it is significant that the language used (in Abr. 1:13) is substantially different from that employed for the other three (in Ab3) or four (Ab4) gods listed.  

Quote

Ab3 (your BA1b)

it was made after the form of a bed stead
such as was had amon the Chaldeans, and
it stood before the Gods, of Elkkener, Zibnah
Mahmachrah and also a god likeunto that
of Pharaoh King of Egypt …

You interpret this seemingly deliberate language (“a god like unto that of Pharaoh, King of Egypt”) as really meaning “a god ‘made in the image’ of Pharaoh, King of Egypt”, thus linking it to the figure of Imsety.  I maintain that there is no exegetical imperative for your interpretation.  Quite to the contrary, I would argue that the unique language employed in this instance parallels the uniqueness of the crocodile in comparison to the four “sons of Horus,” and therefore it seems entirely reasonable to conclude that “Koash” was (for unknown reasons) simply missed in Parrish’s initial copy (Ab3) of the material.  When he made the subsequent copy (Ab4) of the material in question, “Koash” is included in the roster because that is how the exemplar read.

Quote

The notion that Parrish copied "Koash" in BA2 (fldr. 1 [your Ab4]) from a no longer extant document is vitiated by the text-critical evidence that inextricably entwines BA2 (fldr. 1 [your Ab4]) with Parrish's earlier BA1b (fldr. 3 [your Ab3(?)])—a manuscript that omits "Koash."

If you feel otherwise, I welcome rigorous argumentation that Parrish copied a transcription other than his BA1b (fldr. 3 [your Ab3(?)]).

First of all, I will, in course of time, present both rigorous and conclusive argumentation that Ab3 (BA1b) is a copy of a predecessor document.  The evidence already adduced to that end is both substantial and persuasive, and the conclusion I assert is shared by all who have reviewed that evidence to date.

Until that time, you could at least address the arguments I presented above (and the implications that derive therefrom): that Ab3 (BA1b) and Ab4 (BA2) are both dependent on the same putative Ms Q (hence their obvious similarities); most significantly, if, as you assert, Joseph Smith chose to add “Koash” at this juncture (as attested at Abr. 1:6 of Ab4) then explain why he suddenly forgot what he was doing just a few sentences later!

Bear in mind that this addition of "Koash" constitutes the only substantive difference (between Ab3 and Ab4) in this entire portion of the text! So it's not like they had a whole lot else to keep in mind, now did they?  We're talking about a single editorial modification, and yet they just can't remember what they're doing from one page to the next?!

If “Koash” were attested in the subsequent rosters of the gods in Ab4, then I consent that your explanation would merit much more serious consideration.  But that is not the case!  And therefore your proposed exegesis (that Joseph Smith dictated the addition of “Koash” at this juncture) is faced with a significant obstacle.

[gtaggart]

Brent Metcalfe, on 18 April 2010 - 08:56 PM, said:

The notion that Parrish copied "Koash" in BA² (fldr. 1 [your Ab4]) from a no longer extant document is vitiated by the text-critical evidence that inextricably entwines BA² (fldr. 1 [your Ab4]) with Parrish's earlier BA^1b (fldr. 3 [your Ab3(?)])—a manuscript that omits "Koash."

If you feel otherwise, I welcome rigorous argumentation that Parrish copied a transcription other than his BA^1b (fldr. 3 [your Ab3(?)]).

(bolded emphasis mine)

It's been some time since I read Nibley's BYU Studies article on the KEP, so I don't remember his numbering system for the various manuscripts. I do have Marquardt's book, and he uses a different system than either Brent or Will. Is Brian using a different system as well? How about Chris? Pardon the pun, but it's to the point that the numbering business is all Egyptian to me. Is there a way for the principals in this many-pronged but ultimately group endeavor to come up with one numbering system?

Just askin'.

Edited by gtaggart, 22 April 2010 - 06:30 PM.

[William Schryver]

gtaggart, on 22 April 2010 - 06:29 PM, said:

It's been some time since I read Nibley's BYU Studies article on the KEP, so I don't remember his numbering system for the various manuscripts. I do have Marquardt's book, and he uses a different system than either Brent or Will. Is Brian using a different system as well? How about Chris? Pardon the pun, but it's to the point that the numbering business is all Egyptian to me. Is there a way for the principals in this many-pronged but ultimately group endeavor to come up with one numbering system?

Just askin'.

Greg,

The problem is that, other than the original designations to which Nibley referred (based on the folder designations in which the KEP reside in the archives), the Metcalfe and Hauglid designations carry with them implied statements about the production order of the various manuscripts (and even parts within those manuscripts).  If you would like to receive a "pre-publication" explanation of the designations I am now using, send me a PM with an e-mail address and I will send you those designations.  Metcalfe's are available on his website, if I am not mistaken.  It's not really that hard to keep them straight once you understand the reasoning behind both sets.

WS

[Mortal Man]

gtaggart, on 22 April 2010 - 06:29 PM, said:

Is there a way for the principals in this many-pronged but ultimately group endeavor to come up with one numbering system?

I'll second that.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Kerry,

I haven't forgotten you, my friend, I'm just extraordinarily busy. I hope to post more on your OP very soon.



Hi Greg and Andrew,

I concur that agreement on manuscript designations for the BoAbr collection is desirable, and I'm open to collaborating with Brian, Mike, et al. in such an endeavor. In my view, students of the BoAbr would benefit from a stemmatically neutral manuscript sigla.



Hi Will,

William Schryver, on 22 April 2010 - 07:14 PM, said:

The problem is that, other than the original designations to which Nibley referred (based on the folder designations in which the KEP reside in the archives)...

Note, though, that Nibley firmly—yet incomprehensibly—believed that BoAbr folder 1 contained the first BoAbr manuscript.

William Schryver, on 22 April 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

You interpret this seemingly deliberate language (“a god like unto that of Pharaoh, King of Egypt”) as really meaning “a god ‘made in the image’ of Pharaoh, King of Egypt”, thus linking it to the figure of Imsety. I maintain that there is no exegetical imperative for your interpretation.  Quite to the contrary, I would argue that the unique language employed in this instance parallels the uniqueness of the crocodile in comparison to the four “sons of Horus”...

To reiterate, I'm saying that the language in v. 13 is grammatically problematic for any interpretation (including my own). Your assertion fails to remedy the problem.

William Schryver, on 22 April 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

... and therefore it seems entirely reasonable to conclude that “Koash” was (for unknown reasons) simply missed in Parrish’s initial copy (Ab3) of the material.  When he made the subsequent copy (Ab4) of the material in question, “Koash” is included in the roster because that is how the exemplar read.

Without supporting evidence, your assertion is nugatory.

William Schryver, on 22 April 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

First of all, I will, in course of time, present both rigorous and conclusive argumentation that Ab3 (BA1b) is a copy of a predecessor document.  The evidence already adduced to that end is both substantial and persuasive, and the conclusion I assert is shared by all who have reviewed that evidence to date.

Sans the hypothetical exemplar (urtext?), no assertion—let alone an argument—involving such a hypothetical document is, using your word, <<conclusive.>>

William Schryver, on 22 April 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

Until that time, you could at least address the arguments I presented above (and the implications that derive therefrom): that Ab3 (BA1b) and Ab4 (BA2) are both dependent on the same putative Ms Q (hence their obvious similarities); most significantly, if, as you assert, Joseph Smith chose to add “Koash” at this juncture (as attested at Abr. 1:6 of Ab4) then explain why he suddenly forgot what he was doing just a few sentences later!

Simple...

A few facts:

• In the late summer / early fall of 1835, JS was present when copies were made of earlier documents.
  
  
• During these copying stints, modifications to earlier texts were made inline as they were copied.
  
  
• No documentary evidence prohibits JS's presence while Parrish made the copy.
  
  
• Parrish had barely copied half a page when he transcribed "Koash."
  
  
• Unlike a dictation, Parrish's copying did not require JS's fulltime presence (which would explain the omission of "Koash" in vv. 13, 17).
  
  
• Compelling text-critical evidence indicates that Parrish was copying his earlier extant manuscript, not some elusive quelle.

William Schryver, on 22 April 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

Bear in mind that this addition of "Koash" constitutes the only substantive difference (between Ab3 and Ab4) in this entire portion of the text! So it's not like they had a whole lot else to keep in mind, now did they?  We're talking about a single editorial modification, and yet they just can't remember what they're doing from one page to the next?!

Yet this single substantive difference persuades you that <<Ab3 (BA1b) and Ab4 (BA2) are both dependent on the same putative Ms Q>>—really?

William Schryver, on 22 April 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

If “Koash” were attested in the subsequent rosters of the gods in Ab4, then I consent that your explanation would merit much more serious consideration.  But that is not the case!  And therefore your proposed exegesis (that Joseph Smith dictated the addition of “Koash” at this juncture) is faced with a significant obstacle.

?!

No it's not. See above.

All the best,

</brent>



http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 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

Edited by Brent Metcalfe, 25 April 2010 - 08:42 PM.

[William Schryver]

BM:

Quote

Sans the hypothetical exemplar (urtext?), no assertion—let alone an argument—involving such a hypothetical document is, using your word, <<conclusive.>>

If you believe that an extant exemplar is the only thing that could conclusively demonstrate that anything from the KEP authored by Warren Parrish is necessarily a copy of an earlier text, then you may be in for a big surprise at some point in the future.

Quote

In the late summer / early fall of 1835, JS was present when copies were made of earlier documents.

Please feel free to produce some evidence to substantiate this argument, and bear in mind that the mere presence of Joseph Smith in Kirtland, OH in the fall of 1835 is hardly sufficient to establish that he “was present when copies were made of earlier documents.”

This is nothing but an obfuscatory assertion.

Quote

During these copying stints, modifications to earlier texts were made inline as they were copied.

Interesting that you would admit this, since you've never been able to see it as an active principle in Ab2 or Ab3 (your BA1a; BA1b).

At any rate, the "inline" modifications in Ab2/Ab3 differ greatly in their text-critical aspect to the pericope in question ("Koash" in Ab4).  Feel free to produce evidence or argumentation to demonstrate that the addition of “and the god of Koash” was one such “inline” modification.

Otherwise, this is nothing but another assertion.

Quote

No documentary evidence prohibits JS's presence while Parrish made the copy.

So what?

No documentary or text-critical evidence places Joseph Smith in Parrish’s presence as he made this copy.

Your statement is meaningless.

Quote

Parrish had barely copied half a page when he transcribed "Koash."

So what?!

Quote

Unlike a dictation, Parrish's copying did not require JS's fulltime presence (which would explain the omission of "Koash" in vv. 13, 17).

Are you serious?

You know, I really don’t believe that the folks following this discussion are very likely to be impressed by this argument, such as it is.  

Needless to say, your statement does absolutely nothing to “explain the omission of ‘Koash” in vv. 13, 17.”  Nothing.  Indeed, the absence of “Koash” in the two later verses continues to constitute a serious problem for your thesis.  If, as you assert, Joseph Smith thought it important enough to add a fifth god to his idolatrous roster, and if he thought it important enough to make sure Parrish included it in the first listing of those gods (Abr. 1:6), then I submit that he would have made damn sure that “Koash” got included in the subsequent two instances, both of which occur on the very next page!

Quote

Compelling text-critical evidence indicates that Parrish was copying his earlier extant manuscript, not some elusive quelle.

I think it is quite apparent that Parrish was consulting more than one predecessor document as he created Ab4 (your BA2).  Indeed, the text-critical evidence is conclusive on that point, isn’t it?  You simply want to arbitrarily exclude the possibility that one of those documents contained the word “Koash”.

Quote

Yet this single substantive difference persuades you that <<Ab3 (BA1b) and Ab4 (BA2) are both dependent on the same putative Ms Q>>—really?

I never claimed they were dependent only on a putative Ms Q.  In fact, I'm persuaded that they were dependent on more than one predecessor document.  At the very least, we know that Ab4 (BA2) was.



Edit: clarified one passage and desnarkified another.

Edited by William Schryver, 26 April 2010 - 07:26 AM.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

My usual caveat—i.e., sparse playtime due to professional and domestic commitments—doesn't begin to capture life's current demands. I've been heads down on what's anticipated to be the best-selling console game thus far (now in public Beta), so all non-work time has been dedicated to family.

Both Kerry and Will have raised issues that I hope to address in the coming days. Thanks for your patience.

Kind regards,

</brent>



http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 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

[PacMan]

Brent,

Take your time.  Remember what's really important: Halo Reach (I assume).  The beta was awesome.

PacMan

Brent Metcalfe, on 03 May 2010 - 06:56 PM, said:

Hi folks,

My usual caveat—i.e., sparse playtime due to professional and domestic commitments—doesn't begin to capture life's current demands. I've been heads down on what's anticipated to be the best-selling console game thus far (now in public Beta), so all non-work time has been dedicated to family.

Both Kerry and Will have raised issues that I hope to address in the coming days. Thanks for your patience.

Kind regards,

</brent>



http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 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