Jump to content

Critical scholars' statements about the BoA and BoEnoch


Calm

Recommended Posts

From another thread, a poster (noel00) commented on the objectivity conundrum by bringing up these issues:

Someone with no knowledge of Mormonism, if he saw the facsimiles and have no clue as to what they are about. I ask an Egyptologist what they were, they would be told they were Egyptian funerary documents. I look at Mormon defences such as those espoused by Nibley and then find out what his teacher says. Baer says he is citing sources on the fringes of the study of Egyptology. Who should I consider more trustworthy? Someone like Baer, who though a friend of Nibley's did not see the BOA as authentic but was constrained to be polite to his LDS hosts. See Chris Smith's blog for Michale Marquardt's report of Baer's visit to BYU. There is a thesis on Nibley and Enoch at the Durham Uniervirt Theooogy site where another researcher show's Nibley's lack of scholarship with regard to the Book of Enoch.
Breaking this down into separate issues we have....

1) Baer says he [Nibley] is citing sources on the fringes of the study of Egyptology [for his explanations of the facsimiles]

2) Michael Marquardt's report of Baer's visit to BYU as reported by Chris Smith...details to follow hopefully

3) Unindentified thesis on Nibley and Enock at the Durham University Theology site allegedly demonstrates Nibley's lack of scholarship with regard to the Book of Enoch

noel00, do you have more specific info on#3? If so, would you please post it. Thank you.

Chris, if you read this and are interested, perhaps you could isolate a few issues you think are more crucial for us to focus on from your blog (it would be better than me guessing and I really need to hit Walmart tonight before I go to bed and it's almost 1 AM already).

Does anyone have a link to an online source for Baer's comments?

Link to comment
1) Baer says he [Nibley] is citing sources on the fringes of the study of Egyptology [for his explanations of the facsimiles]

2) Michael Marquardt's report of Baer's visit to BYU as reported by Chris Smith...details to follow hopefully

The full series of letters from Baer, Marquardt, and Nibley may be read on my blog here. I haven't looked into the sources that Baer and Nibley were arguing about, so I can't comment on whose interpretation of them was the correct one. I would be quite interested, though, if someone were to get interested enough to track these sources down and report back to us.

Chris, if you read this and are interested, perhaps you could isolate a few issues you think are more crucial for us to focus on from your blog (it would be better than me guessing and I really need to hit Walmart tonight before I go to bed and it's almost 1 AM already).

At the head of each letter, I highlighted some issues I thought were interesting. But just to be clear, Noel and I are different people with different perspectives, so what he says on this thread will not necessarily reflect my views.

Peace,

-Chris

Link to comment

Salvatore Cirillo paper seems to have some real problems. I have only given it a quick once over, and will probably post some more comments later, but, it seems to suffer from many of the same kinds of problems that other papers investigating parallels in such a polemical setting suffer. Take for example, Salvatore's issue with the code name used in the early version of some Sections of the D&C for Joseph Smith: Baurak Ale. He quotes Michael Quinn in this way:

Prior to Joseph Smith
Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...