Textual Variants At Abraham 1:12

[Chris Smith]

I thought we were talking about the KEPA, not the KEPE. And, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that images of most of the papyri fragments have been published in one place or another since 1967.

We were talking about access to the originals (i.e. not images) of the Church's "BoA documentary collection". (And I think you meant JSP, not KEPE.)

============================================

My Controls ==> Board Settings ==> Type of text editor to use when posting

Thanks!

[William Schryver]

CS:

Given the manuscript evidence, I think that my step # 1 is plausible enough.

Which part of the â??manuscript evidenceâ? leads to your assumption that:

Joseph dictates . . .

That, my friend, is the primary unsupported assumption inherent in your point #1.

Regarding your item #2, which part of the â??manuscript evidenceâ? leads to your assumption that:

Williams slides the papyrus toward himself â?¦

Re: #3, which part of the â??manuscript evidenceâ? leads to your assumption that:

Joseph says â?¦

There is nothing in the way of â??manuscript evidenceâ? to support these elements of your hypothesis. Or, more accurately stated, there appears to be nothing persuasive in the items you label â??evidenceâ? that would lead one to the leaps youâ??re taking.

When I argue for an interlinear insertion, the â??evidenceâ? seems quite tangible â?? you can actually see it on the page. And yet you seem willing to transform the obvious into the dubious, and instead chain together for us a series of conjectures that amount to little more than a presumption to clairvoyance.

In all candor, Iâ??m a little surprised. I find this particular foray into Brodie-style historical fictionalizing strangely inconsistent with your normally conservative approach. Inferences are one thing, and certainly some latitude should be afforded people who advance them. But these do seem a bit out of character for you. Maybe itâ??s the oversize crayons youâ??re using.

As people propose alternative theories, we can adduce evidence that supports or subverts them and hopefully eliminate the improbable ones, thereby narrowing down our options to the one or two that seem most probable.

It would seem we have just observed a prime example of that inimitable byproduct of the adversarial process.

.

.

.

(And I think you meant JSP, not KEPE.)

Good catch. I think we should develop a set of icons to replace the innumerable acronyms. That would be more in keeping with our evolved computer-wedded selves. We could use oversize crayons to design them.

[Chris Smith]

Will,

Which part of the “manuscript evidence” leads to your assumption that: "Joseph dictates..." That, my friend, is the primary unsupported assumption inherent in your point #1.

I think we've discussed that one enough that you can't seriously think it's "unsupported". I currently consider simultaneous dictation the most probable explanatory model for the similarities and differences in Manuscripts 2 and 3. But I'm certainly open to considering explanations of Abraham 1:12 from a different theoretical perspective.

Regarding your item #2, which part of the “manuscript evidence” leads to your assumption that: "Williams slides the papyrus toward himself..."

Artistic license. Whether or not Williams slid the papyrus across the table is entirely beside the point.

When I argue for an interlinear insertion, the “evidence” seems quite tangible – you can actually see it on the page. And yet you seem willing to transform the obvious into the dubious, and instead chain together for us a series of conjectures that amount to little more than a presumption to clairvoyance.

As I pointed out earlier, what is at issue is whether this was a later interlinear insertion. That it was an interlinear insertion I (and Brent) do not deny. In any case, what I am trying to do is explain the production of this locus at a broader theoretical level. I am convinced that the "why" and "how" questions I am asking can help inform the "what" question upon which you have fixated. As I pointed out earlier, to divorce the part (our explanatory model for this locus) from the whole (our manuscript production models) would be methodologically misguided.

-Chris

[William Schryver]

CS:

I think we've discussed that one enough that you can't seriously think it's "unsupported".

The assumption â??Joseph dictatesâ? falls into the category of â??keep repeating it over and over as though it were an established fact, and eventually everyone will accept it as such.â?

Needless to say, I have yet to identify a single piece of evidence within these manuscripts that definitively suggests the conclusion â??Joseph dictates.â? On the other hand, I have identified several pieces of evidence that would argue against that conclusion.

There are certain things that I believe one may â??definitivelyâ? conclude on the basis of these documents:

• Frederick G. Williams and Warren Parrish were the authors.
  
  
  .
  
  
• They placed successive hieratic characters from the Sensen text into the left column, but with no definite association with either specific sentences, phrases, paragraphs, concepts, or names.
  
  
  .
  
  
• They believed that a single hieratic character could be associated with dozens of English words.
  
  
  .
  
  
• Whatever these documents represent,
  they are inconsistent in almost every way with the Book of Mormon manuscript.
  
  

Of course, you would reply by saying that the association of hieratic characters with discrete blocks of English text implies a â??translationâ? in process, and since Joseph Smith is the â??translator,â? then he must have been involved. One of the many problems with this hasty conclusion is that it fails to take into consideration the fact that all of the parties who have been linked to the KEP (Cowdery, Phelps, and Parrish) had been led to believe â?? via revelation to them from Joseph Smith â?? that they, too, could take part in revealing the secrets of ancient records to the world! And no one more than W. W. Phelps desired to demonstrate his linguistic acumen to the world. There is no question that each of these men, especially Phelps, aspired to publicly demonstrate his ability to do the kinds of things Joseph Smith did.

This is a fact upon which the critics never want to shine any light. Why is that?

I currently consider simultaneous dictation the most probable explanatory model for the similarities and differences in Manuscripts 2 and 3.

And yet we see essentially the same pattern duplicated in KEPA Ms. #1, most of which we know to be a copy. What distinguishes Mss. #2 and #3 from Ms. #1 in such a way that you conclude #2 and #3 to be the product of dictation, while Ms. #1 is the product of copying? You see, one must not look at a subset of the â??factsâ? and draw conclusions solely from that limited body of evidence. You claim that the apparent evidence for copying can be explained within the paradigm for dictation. Have you considered the possibility that the apparent evidence for dictation can be explained within the paradigm for copying?

As I pointed out earlier, what is at issue is whether this was a later interlinear insertion. That it was an interlinear insertion I (and Brent) do not deny.

I am gratified that we are in accord, finally, on this point.

Of course, any insertion is, by definition, a later insertion. The only question is how much time transpired between the describing of the space and the subsequent insertion in that space. To me, that amount of time is irrelevant. The only inference I suggest from the anomalous nature of Abr. 1:12 in both Mss. #2 and #3 is that there was obviously some uncertainty about how to reference the location of the illustration from within the body of the text, and that apparent uncertainty can only suggest that the entire phrase is of 19th century, rather than ancient origin.

Therefore the published text of the Book of Abraham cannot be said (as long suggested by the critics) to contain an internal reference that implicitly associates itself with the Sensen text.

That is the justifiable conclusion our readers should draw from this brief discussion.

[Chris Smith]

CS: The assumption â??Joseph dictatesâ? falls into the category of â??keep repeating it over and over as though it were an established fact, and eventually everyone will accept it as such.â?

My conclusion that Joseph dictated these manuscripts is based on careful consideration of the evidence that has been presented by both sides on this very forum. The case for simultaneous dictation rests largely on the several identical in-line emendations made in both manuscripts. Ashment aptly describes these as "corrections where Smith apparently changed the wording of his translation as he dictated it." The evidence for visual copying rests largely on supposed dittography and dubious comparisons to the BoM manuscripts. You assert that "the apparent evidence for dictation can be explained within the paradigm for copying." That may be true so long as the paradigm for copying remains ambiguous. But once we start nailing it down (i.e. positing dual copying from a Q manuscript or copying of MS 3 from MS 2), the task becomes much more difficult. In any case, I'm not claiming that any model has been definitively proven. I am merely claiming that I "currently consider simultaneous dictation the most probable explanatory model." As I said above, "I'm certainly open to considering explanations of Abraham 1:12 from a different theoretical perspective."

There are certain things that I believe one may â??definitivelyâ? conclude on the basis of these documents:

Frederick G. Williams and Warren Parrish were the authors.

I prefer the term "scribes".

They placed successive hieratic characters from the Sensen text into the left column, but with no definite association with either specific sentences, phrases, paragraphs, concepts, or names.

There is definite association with discrete units of English text, though you're right that these units are not always complete sentences or paragraphs. Sometimes they end in mid-sentence. However, I object to your intimation that they have no association with specific "phrases" and "concepts". When one compares the GAEL with the translation manuscripts, one encounters several such specific associations.

They believed that a single hieratic character could be associated with dozens of English words.

Yes, they did. This is spelled out quite explicitly in writings by Cowdery and in the Grammar. The concept of Egyptian as a compact language is evidently one originated in connection with the BoM translation and systematized in the GAEL.

Whatever these documents represent, they are inconsistent in almost every way with the Book of Mormon manuscript.

Skousen's five dictation "earmarks" are descriptive of the BoM manuscripts; they are not prescriptive for all such studies. The BoA manuscripts are much shorter, were written by different amanuenses, and followed a different plan than the BoM manuscripts. The extent to which the BoA manuscripts lack these earmarks has also been exaggerated by the apologist camp.

Of course, you would reply by saying that the association of hieratic characters with discrete blocks of English text implies a â??translationâ? in process, and since Joseph Smith is the â??translator,â? then he must have been involved. One of the many problems with this hasty conclusion is that it fails to take into consideration the fact that all of the parties who have been linked to the KEP (Cowdery, Phelps, and Parrish) had been led to believe â?? via revelation to them from Joseph Smith â?? that they, too, could take part in revealing the secrets of ancient records to the world! And no one more than W. W. Phelps desired to demonstrate his linguistic acumen to the world. There is no question that each of these men, especially Phelps, aspired to publicly demonstrate his ability to do the kinds of things Joseph Smith did.

The purely speculative "scribes did it" theory has the unfortunate downside of contradicting the diary entries and other historical evidence that implicates Joseph Smith in the production of the KEP collection. I do grant that Phelps and Cowdery may have played a significant role in the production of these documents. For example, Cowdery may have been the one who was studying the papyri in connection with Josephus and bringing his findings to the prophet's attention. And where the BoA incorporates material from the GAEL, it may well be the product of Joseph's and his scribes' initial efforts to "work it out in their minds" by matching up the characters on the papyrus with the ones that are interpreted in the Grammar. But where material in the KEP appears to have been received by direct inspiration, I think there's little question that Joseph's was the operative mind.

And yet we see essentially the same pattern duplicated in KEPA Ms. #1, most of which we know to be a copy.

What pattern are you referring to?

The only inference I suggest from the anomalous nature of Abr. 1:12 in both Mss. #2 and #3 is that there was obviously some uncertainty about how to reference the location of the illustration from within the body of the text, and that apparent uncertainty can only suggest that the entire phrase is of 19th century, rather than ancient origin.

I suppose that since I believe the entire text is of 19th century origin, including this phrase, I can't disagree.

But is it your opinion that every time Joseph corrected one of his revelations, he did so without the benefit of revelation? Or is this methodological principle only operative for you when it is faith-promoting?

-Chris

[Brian Hauglid]

Deleted

BMH

[Chris Smith]

Brian,

I appreciate the irenic reply. And I do, of course, respect your views and your right to disagree with my conclusions on this subject. Having said that, I should reiterate that I think making generalizations about visual copying and later interlinear insertions in the absence of a complete and coherent model to explain the relationship between the manuscripts is in my opinion methodologically unsound (not to mention unconvincing). I am more likely to consider a visual copying model if and when a thorough model is actually proposed.

Just in case there is still any confusion about the specifics of my hypothesis vis a vis Abraham 1:12, I want to close by stating it a bit more clearly.

1) Joseph dictates the preceding line up to the word "altar," at which point he stops and says, "next character." Both scribes finish writing the paragraph.

2) Having finished writing the paragraph, the scribes now need to draw the next margin character. Williams goes first; Parrish is waiting his turn.

3) While Williams is in the middle of drawing the character, Joseph says, "No, wait. Add 'I will refer you to the representation that is lying before you' to that last paragraph." Since Williams is occupied drawing the character, Parrish starts writing the additional line a little before Williams does. This accounts for Parrish being a bit ahead of Williams.

4) Williams finishes drawing the next Egyptian character, then crams the additional English phrase into the space at the end of the previous paragraph so as not to throw his English text out of alignment with the just-drawn character.

5) JS says, "No, make it 'at the commencement of this record' instead of "that is lying before you'."

6) Parrish, who had started writing the insertion a bit before Williams, has to strike out "that is lying before you." Williams, however, has not yet written "lying before you" and so is able to finish the sentence without any strike-outs.

As I mentioned above, this is a hypothetical model, not something that I am presenting as an established fact. I admit it is not elegantly simple. But I think it is perfectly plausible, given the textual evidence thus far adduced. I don't claim to have external confirmation for all of the various steps; nor do I think I necessarily need to produce any. Rather than demand that any one model be definitively proven at every point, I think the only really viable approach is to adduce as much confirming or disconfirming evidence as possible for the several competing models and to decide, at the end of careful examination, which seems most likely.

Best,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

I'm sure you know that the use of "irenic" as a general description my last post (and what follows) tells me you don't respect what I, as an LDS scholar, have to say about these mss. That's too bad. I can teach you nothing. So mite it be.

Unless I'm misusing the term "irenic", I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. As I indicated in my post, I do respect what you have to say. Perhaps you are allowing your past experiences with message board critics to influence your reading of my posts? In any case, I hope we can part on friendly terms. Best wishes,

-Chris

P.S. - I regret to see you deleted your last post. I thought it was one of the more worthwhile posts in this thread so far. I would encourage you to restore it, if you still have it saved somewhere. If not, it is all of our loss.

[Brian Hauglid]

Unless I'm misusing the term "irenic", I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion.

In my field "irenic" is generally used to refer to inferior scholarship. I'm relieved you were not using it in that way. I realize it mainly has the meaning of promoting peace and conciliation. It appears this was the way you were using the word. My apologies.

P.S. - I regret to see you deleted your last post. I thought it was one of the more worthwhile posts in this thread so far. I would encourage you to restore it, if you still have it saved somewhere. If not, it is all of our loss.

I did not save the post.

Best wishes to you too.

Brian

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

I previously noted that your transcription of BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), 1.37â??1.38 is inaccurate. You replied:

Obviously, the transcription I rendered is based on my personal interpretation of the text-critical evidence. You act as though there is only one "correct" interpretation!

Since when did transcription become a synonym for interpretation?!?

You declare with bombastic certitude things that you clearly know little about. Your transcription of BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), 1.37â??1.38 is inaccurate, and it's obvious that you don't know whyâ??end of story.

Cheers,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your input.

Vis-

[William Schryver]

BM:

You declare with bombastic certitude things that you clearly know little about. Your transcription of BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), 1.37â??1.38 is inaccurate, and it's obvious that you don't know whyâ??end of story.

And once again you manifest that effusive Metcalfe charm for the entertainment of the studio audience.

Feel free to give your strong reasons for why my rendering of the passage in question fails to meet your stringent requirements for the purposes of our discussion. We will all promise to bow in reverent silence as you shower your erudition upon our unworthy heads. And if itâ??s not too much trouble, make sure to elaborate on the supreme relevance to the discussion of those transcription flaws you triumphantly expose. Donâ??t leave us to wallow in our abject ignorance. Itâ??s the least you can do.

.

.

.

(Oh, my! And just when I thought my folder of Metcalfe-isms couldnâ??t possibly grow in hubristic wonder.)

In any case, weâ??ve all managed, in your absence, to reach a conclusion/impasse on the significance of Abr. 1:12. Whether you found my â??transcriptionâ? satisfactory or not, it apparently failed to impede the progress of a discussion now effectively ended. We now understand (to a sufficient extent) your proffered explanation for what we see at Abr. 1:12 in these documents. For that, I am personally gratified and therefore consider this thread a notable success in many ways.

Please promise to join us again sometime. I'm certain the opportunity will present itself again in the near future.

.

.

.

Edit: I just noticed this:

The parallel to lines 1.37â??1.38 in BoAbr ms. 1b (fldr. 3) was not (contra Will Schryver) a later emendation by Warren Parrish.

Though I may have, at some point in the past, conjectured the possibility that this is a later emendation, I view it only as a possibility, and on a basis similar to the one you cite for Williams' secondary emendations in Ms. #2 -- possibly different/darker ink used in the strikeout. However, I am not committed to that conclusion, and I consider it largely irrelevant at this point.

Also, you may have missed the fact that I have already acknowledged, earlier in this thread, the possibility that the so-called "curved line" is a scribal indicator of some sort rather than a parenthesis. Be it one or the other, my essential argument remains unchanged: this phrase is a later insertion.

Ciao . . .

[Brian Hauglid]

(Irenic = "inferior scholarship" in your field of expertise? Really?)

I know. Who'd a thunk. I got that years ago by one of the most well respected scholars of Islam. He felt "irenic" scholarship in religious studies was too conciliatory and demonstrated an unwillingness to bring out the truth, warts and all. He has a point.

[Brian Hauglid]

Brent,

You said:

I have multiple reasons for questioning the notion that Williams' inclusion of the clause was a later emendation.

I asked:

Well then please provide your analysis.

I also asked:

Are you sure an inline insertion in Ms 2 (Ashment 1a) at Abr. 1:12 is the best argument for simultaneous dictation? Why? I'm sure we both agree that Ms 3 (Ashment 1b) at Abr. 1:12 is not a later insertion. Correct?

It would be very considerate of you to answer my questions first and to please provide your analysis of Abr. 1:12 at this point. If you're worried about posting spoilers you could send the analysis to my email address.

You already know my answers to most of the questions you posed. I prefer not to play a cat and mouse game with you. If you've got something substantive to offer please get on with it.

Cheers,

Brian

[Brian Hauglid]

BTW:

Concerning Will you said:

You declare with bombastic certitude things that you clearly know little about. Your transcription of BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2), 1.37â??1.38 is inaccurate, and it's obvious that you don't know whyâ??end of story.

Iâ??m not sure where you think heâ??s been â??bombasticâ??. I havenâ??t seen that. I think your personal animus is getting in the way of your being able to appreciate â?? let alone respond to â?? the strong arguments he presents.

I enjoyed your essay in The Religious Educatorâ??"Searching for God's Word in New Testament Textual Criticism."

Your very kind.

Correction: In a previous post I misspelled a word.

So mite it be.

should read "So mote it be."

[Zeta-Flux]

The interlineal insertion apparently commenced with a parenthesis, the bottom of which overlays the cross of the â??tâ? and the ascender of the â??hâ? in the word â??theâ? preceding â??form of a bedsted.â? Then the scribe, apparently recognizing that he could not insert the full phrase intended in the space following the parenthesis, commenced writing â??I will refer you â?¦â? further to the left and even further above the parenthesis â?? the word â??willâ? necessarily rising to avoid the top of the parenthesis. He then proceeds to write the remainder of the line to â??that is at the â?¦â? and then finishes the phrase by starting with â??commencement â?¦â? immediately after the parenthesis. There is no closing parenthesis.

William,

I'm not following this line of thinking. If the mark you take as a parenthesis was written before the insertion, why was it placed so low in the space between the two lines, and so far away from the word "altar"?

[William Schryver]

William,

I'm not following this line of thinking. If the mark you take as a parenthesis was written before the insertion, why was it placed so low in the space between the two lines, and so far away from the word "altar"?

Zeta,

That's a good observation. Assuming this is a parenthesis, then my answer would be that the scribe didn't accurately anticipate how much space his parenthetical insertion would require when he first made the parenthesis. That would explain its placement on the horizontal axis. As to why it is, relatively speaking, lower than the terminating word "alter," my response would simply be that is a good argument for this not being a parenthesis, but rather some kind of scribal indicator that Williams used to denote that what followed was a continuation of the line immediately above.

In either case, as I have repeatedly observed, it seems clear that we're dealing with an interlinear insertion. That was my only point. The import of this being an insertion, in conjunction with the anomalous nature of Abr. 1:12 in the Parrish manuscript is, as I noted previously, this:

The only inference I suggest from the anomalous nature of Abr. 1:12 in both Mss. #2 and #3 is that there was obviously some uncertainty about how to reference the location of the illustration from within the body of the text, and that apparent uncertainty can only suggest that the entire phrase is of 19th century, rather than ancient origin.

Therefore the published text of the Book of Abraham cannot be said (as long suggested by the critics) to contain an internal reference that implicitly associates itself with the Sensen text.

That is the justifiable conclusion our readers should draw from this brief discussion.

I hope I managed to answer your question with a minimum of "bombastic certitude." I hear there's been a lot of that going around lately.

[Zeta-Flux]

William,

In that case, wouldn't the next sensible thing to do be: look for similar marks to better be able to judge if this is a scribal mark/indicator or a parenthesis?

And unfortunately, you succeeded in demonstrating your bombastic minimum. No place to go but up from here.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

[William Schryver]

William,

In that case, wouldn't the next sensible thing to do be: look for similar marks to better be able to judge if this is a scribal mark/indicator or a parenthesis?

And unfortunately, you succeeded in demonstrating your bombastic minimum. No place to go but up from here.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

To the extent it is deemed important to do so, I'm sure it shouldn't be too hard to review the several extant examples of Williams' writing looking for such a thing. However, I think it doesn't matter whether it is one or the other. In either case, the best explanation for what we see at this point in the document is an insertion. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. I happen to know that this question has been put to several others with greater text-critical expertise that I possess, and they concur to a man that this is an interlinear insertion. More importantly, in my estimation, is that we are seeing something anomalous in both the Williams and Parrish manuscripts at this particular point. Hence my conclusions (as posted above) concerning the "big picture". This phrase shows all the indications of not being part of the original Book of Abraham text, but rather something added by Joseph Smith during the editing process.

That is the point I am trying to make here.

[Zeta-Flux]

William,

What evidences do these experts you showed it to give? Did they tell you their reasons?

I just find it odd that someone would start an insertion low in the line, far from the previous text, and then change their mind, start close to the text (with the same sizing and in the middle of the line), and then write upwards, subsequently squeezing the text smaller. On the other hand, I can completely understand the idea of trying to fit more into the line by starting to write upwards (thus making room below) and then finishing the sentence on the line below.

Also, I disagree with your assertion concerning the importance of the mark. If this is a common occurance for the scribe when he makes room for two sentences on one line, that destroys your theory. On the other hand, if the scribe has never used such a mark in any extant manuscripts, it is more likely to be a parenthesis (which would greatly bolster your hypothesis).

[exegete]

Hi Brian,

On the use of irenic, you may want to alert seasoned Mormon historian Richard L. Bushman to the "inferior scholarship" meaning since he fancies himself an "irenic" interpreter of Mormonism (R. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005], xxii).

But maybe he purloined the usage from a tainted sourceâ??after all, he noted that a publication by two critics of Mormonism "makes a genuine effort to be irenic, and I hope that Mormon readers will accept the work in the spirit in which it is offered" (R. Bushman, review of H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record [salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994] in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6 [1994], 2:133, emphasis added). Sounds a tad similar to one of the endorsements on the dust jacket:

In an arena often mired in apologetics and polemics, Michael Marquardt and Wesley Walters articulate the intricacies of Mormon origins irenically [emphasis added].

The endorser?... Me.

In any event, I'm falling asleep and drooling on my keyboard (16-hour work days are taking their toll). I'll post a few comments tomorrow about your less-than-subtle posturing on text-critically interpreting the BoAbr manuscripts.

Sleep well.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

I meant to post the above message under my name and not my moniker exegete.

Cheers,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[juliann]

Hi Brian,

On the use of irenic, you may want to alert seasoned Mormon historian Richard L. Bushman to the "inferior scholarship" meaning since he fancies himself an "irenic" interpreter of Mormonism (R. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005], xxii).

What was the point of this churlish sarcasm? Why should an expert in ancient scripture be informing a historian? This display is only convincing if you are familiar with the inner workings of their respective fields and without a degree of any kind you are not. This was an informative thread but whenever you have entered what is supposed to be an academic forum it ends up with repetitive, off-topic and boorish sniping. It is so very, very tiring and predictable....and it belongs in the other folder.

Back to lurking.

BTW, "irenic" immediately reminded me of how "apologetic" has become an insult. It makes perfect sense in a competitive academic arena but I guess you kind of have to be there. I apologize for continuing the off-topic stupid stuff but enough is enough Brent. Get this junk out of pundits, please so the rest of us can get something out of this.

[Brian Hauglid]

On the use of irenic, you may want to alert seasoned Mormon historian Richard L. Bushman to the "inferior scholarship" meaning since he fancies himself an "irenic" interpreter of Mormonism (R. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005], xxii).

But maybe he purloined the usage from a tainted sourceâ??after all, he noted that a publication by two critics of Mormonism "makes a genuine effort to be irenic, and I hope that Mormon readers will accept the work in the spirit in which it is offered" (R. Bushman, review of H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record [salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1994] in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6 [1994], 2:133, emphasis added).

Good grief. What tripe!

I'll post a few comments tomorrow about your less-than-subtle posturing on text-critically interpreting the BoAbr manuscripts.

Don't bother. Let's just publish our volumes and let the chips fall where they may.

Brian

[Nemesis]

This is just a friendly reminder to please read the notice at the top of pundits board found here. The whole point of this section is so mods would not have to get involved and those involved in a particular thread know what is going on with the topic at hand while avoiding distractions/derailments from the main board.

Thank you,

Mods