Brian Hauglid's Textual Criticism of the Book of Abraham

[David Bokovoy]

Speaking of announcements on forthcoming contributions to our understanding of the Book of Abraham, I thought I would go ahead and share with the board the one I

[volgadon]

Be excited! Be very excited!

I am! I am!

I'm sure this will be particularly valuable when it comes to the onomasticon.

[David Bokovoy]

I am! I am!

I'm sure this will be particularly valuable when it comes to the onomasticon.

You're exactly right! There are some very significant differences in terms of proper names and it's all there!

[David T]

So, when will there be a website with mouthwatering excerpts set up?

[wenglund]

Hi David,

Exiting news, indeed. Apparently, the old saying is true aboutt good things coming in threes. We have Gee's and Will's FAIR presentations to look forward to, and now Brian's.

Do you anticipate that Brian's book will stir up, if not topple, the BoA critics' hornet nest?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

Hi David,

Exiting news, indeed. Apparently, the old saying is true aboutt good things coming in threes. We have Gee's and Will's FAIR presentations to look forward to, and now Brian's.

Do you anticipate that Brian's book will stir up, if not topple, the BoA critics' hornet nest?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hello Wade,

Brian's book is not apologetic in nature. It will be a valuable resource for both believers and critics. This first volume will not contain the KEP.

[wenglund]

Hello Wade,

Brian's book is not apologetic in nature. It will be a valuable resource for both believers and critics. This first volume will not contain the KEP.

That is still good news.

Oh..and I look forward to your FAIR presentation as well--that is, if I can make it to the conference.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hello Wade,

Brian's book is not apologetic in nature. It will be a valuable resource for both believers and critics. This first volume will not contain the KEP.

That explains why the critics have not jumped in on this thread, unlike the WS thread.

[William Schryver]

Hello Wade,

Brian's book is not apologetic in nature. It will be a valuable resource for both believers and critics. This first volume will not contain the KEP.

This is not entirely accurate.

Not apologetic in nature = more or less TRUE. However, there are some of his annotations that will be perceived as apologetic in nature because they implicitly argue for an interpretation that differs from that of the critics. For example, he will argue for a stemma of the Abraham manuscripts that is inconsistent with the Ashment/Metcalfe chronology of the documents. In fact, the simple naming convention Brian establishes in the book contains an implicit apologetic argument. All the same, the book is not overtly apologetic.

Second, it is not true that this volume does not "contain the KEP." The Abraham manuscripts are considered part of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and Brian's book contains the images and transcriptions for all of the Abraham manuscripts.

A subsequent volume will be similar to this first volume, except that it will be focused on the remaining documents from the collection currently called the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers."

[juliann]

We have probably had less on the BoA than anything since FAIR began. It's been a long wait with a lot of ridicule but this is the future of Mormon scholarship and it will intersect with other mainstream scholarship not "apologetics". And it is just going to keep on coming. The contramopologetic community is a small isolated group that has not been preparing for the future.

[Chris Smith]

Fantastic, David! Thanks for the heads up. I am very excited to peruse this volume!

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is a big one, an exciting one. I look forward to it!

[ttribe]

Brian

[David T]

Where?

And, perhaps more importantly, how much?

[David Bokovoy]

This is not entirely accurate.

Thanks for rendering your opinion, but I'll stick with Brian's assessment of the work. He himself made it very clear that the book does not present an apologetic argument and is intended purely as an academic resource for both believer and critic. He specifically mentioned that he hoped critics such as Dan Vogel will find the book helpful in the same way that we, as believers, have benefited from the Early Mormon Documents series. According to Brian, at most, one might disagree with a word reading, etc.

Second, it is not true that this volume does not "contain the KEP." The Abraham manuscripts are considered part of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and Brian's book contains the images and transcriptions for all of the Abraham manuscripts.

A subsequent volume will be similar to this first volume, except that it will be focused on the remaining documents from the collection currently called the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers."

[David Bokovoy]

And, perhaps more importantly, how much?

Not sure yet of the price. Brian hopes it's not too expensive, but it is rather lengthy and as mentioned contains impressive full color photos.

[William Schryver]

Thanks for rendering your opinion, but I'll stick with Brian's assessment of the work. He himself made it very clear that the book does not present an apologetic argument and is intended purely as an academic resource for both believer and critic. He specifically mentioned that he hoped critics such as Dan Vogel will find the book helpful in the same way that we, as believers, have benefited from the Early Mormon Documents series. According to Brian, at most, one might disagree with a word reading, etc.

You really have gotten yourself all twisted up in a major state of offended, haven't you? Wow!

You know, that grudge is going to get heavier and heavier as time goes by. Why don't you find a convenient place to divest yourself of it?

In any case, dear brother Bokovoy, it isn't "my opinion." Nor does what I said conflict with "Brian's assessment of the work." Do you really think that I don't know what is in that book? Really? There's an appreciable amount of my own work in the thing. I understand quite well how Brian conceived and executed the book, and all the evolutions it went through to reach its current state. While I have not reviewed the final product yet, I have been in almost continuous conversation with Brian concerning the book for the past four years. And if you showed the paragraph I wrote in my previous post to Brian, he would say, "That's exactly right." While not ostensibly nor overtly apologetic, it very much has apologetic implications, and as a result certain parts of it will be rejected/resisted by people who continue to adhere to the Ashment/Metcalfe chronology for the Abraham manuscripts--primarily the naming convention Brian has established; the interpretations that justify that naming convention, and the implications that flow from those interpretations.

If you don't believe me, copy and paste my post above and send it to Brian and ask him if he agrees with what I said. If he doesn't, then you come back here and post his negative response and I will eat a cold plate of raw crow in front of everyone.

In the meantime, take a look in the mirror. There's someone there that is becoming increasingly hard to recognize.

[ttribe]

Not sure yet of the price. Brian hopes it's not too expensive, but it is rather lengthy and as mentioned contains impressive full color photos.

How about the "where"?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You really have gotten yourself all twisted up in a major state of offended, haven't you? Wow!

You know, that grudge is going to get heavier and heavier as time goes by. Why don't you find a convenient place to divest yourself of it?

<---(Runs for cover!)

[Mortal Man]

<---(Runs for cover!)

Ironically, it's the critics who serve as peacemakers on this board. Were it not for their presence, the apologists would savage each other.

[ttribe]

<---(Runs for cover!)

LOL!

[ttribe]

Ironically, it's the critics who serve as peacemakers on this board. Were it not for their presence, the apologists would savage each other.

Yep...you nailed it; it's JUST critics who are peacemakers.[/sarcasm]

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ironically, it's the critics who serve as peacemakers on this board. Were it not for their presence, the apologists would savage each other.

Ha, yeah. Good one.

[David Bokovoy]

You really have gotten yourself all twisted up in a major state of offended, haven't you? Wow!

You know, that grudge is going to get heavier and heavier as time goes by. Why don't you find a convenient place to divest yourself of it?

In any case, dear brother Bokovoy, it isn't "my opinion." Nor does what I said conflict with "Brian's assessment of the work." Do you really think that I don't know what is in that book? Really? There's an appreciable amount of my own work in the thing. I understand quite well how Brian conceived and executed the book, and all the evolutions it went through to reach its current state. While I have not reviewed the final product yet, I have been in almost continuous conversation with Brian concerning the book for the past four years. And if you showed the paragraph I wrote in my previous post to Brian, he would say, "That's exactly right." While not ostensibly nor overtly apologetic, it very much has apologetic implications, and as a result certain parts of it will be rejected/resisted by people who continue to adhere to the Ashment/Metcalfe chronology for the Abraham manuscripts--primarily the naming convention Brian has established; the interpretations that justify that naming convention, and the implications that flow from those interpretations.

If you don't believe me, copy and paste my post above and send it to Brian and ask him if he agrees with what I said. If he doesn't, then you come back here and post his negative response and I will eat a cold plate of raw crow in front of everyone.

In the meantime, take a look in the mirror. There's someone there that is becoming increasingly hard to recognize.

Of course there are apologetic implications that can be drawn from the book, just as there are critical arguments that could be deduced through Brian's research. But Brian does not consider himself an apologist and made sure that I knew that the book is not apologetic in nature. So even if you consider yourself a co-author, it's wrong to suggest publicly that this book is somehow "apologetic in nature." It's not, nor was a defense of the faith the "primary" author's intent.

[William Schryver]

Of course there are apologetic implications that can be drawn from the book, just as there are critical arguments that could be deduced through Brian's research. But Brian does not consider himself an apologist and made sure that I knew that the book is not apologetic in nature. So even if you consider yourself a co-author, it's wrong to suggest publicly that this book is somehow "apologetic in nature." It's not, nor was a defense of the faith the "primary" author's intent.

And the downward spiral continues ...

Now it takes the form of deliberate misrepresentation. And to what end? And whence the motivation?

Who knows?

<sigh>

appreciable: capable of being perceived or measured

Although I am credited where applicable, I am not, nor did I insinuate in the least that I am a "co-author." That said, there are probably not many people who understand better than I what is in Brian's upcoming book.

What is your problem, anyway?

I won't wait for an answer. Nor will I endeavor in futility any more to figure it out. I suppose you have what you feel to be good reasons for this spirit of hostility that has beset you. I just hope it fades away in time ...