CA Steve

"But a good many solid examples still hold up as almost certainly or probably archaic." "almost certainly or probably archaic" Why is the default assumption archaic in these instances? There is a consistent pattern of ancient parallels presented as evidence for Mormonism which has not ruled out modern origins. This type of evidence is not persuasive to anyone outside of belief, nor should it be.

Kind of a scary comparison when you think about what happened to the people Moroni was leading.

Yesterday's doctrine is today's "I don't know that we teach that". Today's "nuanced faith" is tomorrow's orthodoxy.

Which god(s)?

You are correct. I was thinking about the method Smith used for revising the OT which was only to note when there were changes made. Since they were copying the entire text in the NT, my reasoning does not apply.

It isn't the fact that Smith did not change the verse that makes it obvious he is using Clarke, it is the fact he had his scribe write it down. Why even have the scribe write it down if Smith is not looking at Clarke?

It's like Wayment didn't even participate in the paper. Blame everything on the apostate and dismiss the paper because of that. easy-peasy. Regardless of what we think of Willson-Lemmon, Wayment's name is on the paper, he is still a very faithful member, (why faith is even part of the discussion shows how much people have to reach to dismiss conclusions they find uncomfortable) and the paper should be discussed on its merits.

Funny how we can pick through thousands of years of Abrahamic parallels as evidence of a historical Book of Abraham but direct quotes and changes from a book known to be accessible to Smith are seen as "weak". By the way, Wayment is not claiming this is plagiarism .

On Edit: As SMAC has pointed out below you are responding to the Jackson article.

What about a BYU professor trained in ANE languages like Matt Grey who disagrees with Dr Gee, do you trust him also?

It hasn't gone unheeded. People like Hauglid and Bokovoy have very explicitly pointed out the problems with these approaches at great costs to their careers. Others like Jensen, Ashurst-McGee, Grey, Ashment, and Givens have also published contrasting view points in highly respected peer reviewed venues. What is being ignored here (by here I mean in this form) is the fact that one can disagree with BYU Egyptological theories on the production of the Book of Abraham and still believe it to be scripture. One shouldn't have to support the missing scroll theory to get or keep job at BYU.

Ancient and antiquity are equally vague terms. Correct me if I am wrong but I think by 'antiquity' you probably mean known parallels between the BofA and what we know of Egypt from around 2000 years after Abraham was purported to live. The argument being that when Smith lines up with any of those items it is unlikely he could have acquired that information from his own milieu. Which is basically an argument from ignorance. At best we can show that some of the items claimed to be guessed by Smith were readily available to him in books we know he used like the Crocodile God as Steve Thompson has

What do you mean by "antiquity" when it comes to the BofA and Abraham?

I am curious what you mean by "antiquity"? Are you asking for evidence that the Abraham of the PofGP actually lived? or?

Just how does one calculate the percentage of what has yet to be discovered?