The Book Of Abraham/Book Of Breathings Controversy

[William Schryver]

Great. I hope that your graphic will include the five characters most in question here (i.e. those characters that were a part of Phelp's "specimen" and his EA).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Don't hold your breath waiting for either Smith or "Miller" to actually provide substantive arguments or evidence to support their assertions. I've been playing this silly game with Chris ever since my 2010 FAIR presentation. When he's among his friends over on his home board, all he has to do is say "Schryver is wrong" and they all start rolling on the floor in convulsions of "I knew it" spasms. But when I actually appear and press him for substantive arguments, he mumbles something about not wanting to have a dialogue with someone like me, and then he splits the scene, heading again for the refuge of his apostate friends who can be counted on to heap upon him the acclaim he craves. It's an old routine now, but I'm sure he'll do it again this time.

So, I'm left asking anyone who will listen: where are the counter-arguments to the thesis I presented and supported with substantial evidence? There simply must be something to account for the rumors I so often hear of its demise. Its destruction supposedly came at the hands of Smith, but search as I might, I cannot locate where he has presented anything in the way of rebuttal to what I have argued.

[Chris Smith]

Its destruction supposedly came at the hands of Smith, but search as I might, I cannot locate where he has presented anything in the way of rebuttal to what I have argued.

I suppose consolidating the dozens of posts in which I did so is yet another project I will have to undertake for your benefit when I find the time.

[William Schryver]

I'm sure the moderators of this fine message board would be glad to host a formal debate in the Focused Discussions forum between me and Smith (and others such as Dan McClellan and Ben McGuire and anyone Chris would like to invite) on the topic of the primary thesis of my 2010 FAIR Conference presentation. Consider this a formal invitation.

[William Schryver]

I suppose consolidating the dozens of posts in which I did so is yet another project I will have to undertake for your benefit when I find the time.

Feel free to point me to three of your best ones.

I'm not familiar with ANY substantive counter-argument you have made.

Even so, my previous post stands. Let's get all the arguments in one place for others to consider. Let's inaugurate a debate in the Focused Discussions forum of this board, and you can slaughter my arguments to your heart's delight.

ETA: I will be glad to take a couple days to prepare an initial post laying out my case that the EA/GAEL are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. After I post it, consider yourself invited to respond with the "greatest hits" from your "dozens" of posts where you have decimated the arguments I present.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

I'm sick and tired of your bluffing on this topic, Chris. You've been pumping your posse for over a year with this inflated mythology of you having destroyed the primary thesis of my FAIR presentation. Well, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.

I formally challenge you to debate the topic: Is the EA/GAEL Dependent on a Pre-existing Text of the Book of Abraham?. It will be held in the Focused Discussions forum of this message board. You can take as long as you'd like between posts. No hurry. A few others can participate, but I want this to primarily be a debate between you and me, so I think it best that we only invite others who will not attempt to dominate the discussion themselves, and that we are each permitted to ban any poster who violates that general rule. Also, I think anyone who posts has to be able to exhibit a satisfactory knowledge of the subject matter.

The debate will begin as soon as I make an initial post. I will initiate the thread. That will be in two or three days from now.

[wenglund]

Don't hold your breath waiting for either Smith or "Miller" to actually provide substantive arguments or evidence to support their assertions.

I understand "George's " reticence to disclose his research or to discuss it here since since he is somewhat beholding to the MHA.

As for Chris, my experience has been somewhat different in that he often provides evidence in support of the arguments he has offered to me. And, I really hope that he comes through again because I believe if he can intelligently map the characters in a way that they may align with the sounds and English explanations of other characters, this may provide all the more reason to believe in a preexisting text. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

I understand "George's " reticence to disclose his research or to discuss it here since since he is somewhat beholding to the MHA.

As for Chris, my experience has been somewhat different in that he often provides evidence in support of the arguments he has offered to me. And, I really hope that he comes through again because I believe if he can intelligently map the characters in a way that they may align with the sounds and English explanations of other characters, this may provide all the more reason to believe in a preexisting text. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I look forward to any evidence he might present. I really do.

[Chris Smith]

, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six (just for the heck of it). Then there's the published paper you completely ignored in your presentation. And there's this post by Brent. And this is just scratching the surface. The rebuttals are so abundant that it must have taken a special kind of amnesia to forget about them.

I'm sure the moderators of this fine message board would be glad to host a formal debate in the Focused Discussions forum between me and Smith (and others such as Dan McClellan and Ben McGuire and anyone Chris would like to invite) on the topic of the primary thesis of my 2010 FAIR Conference presentation. Consider this a formal invitation.

After your behavior here, probably not. But talk to me again in January after I'm done with my quals.

[Mike Reed]

The last page of posts look very civil until this. You will be suspended if you change the tone of the thread. It looks like everyone is clear that Mr. Miller is prevented from responding at this time.

Huh? If I change the tone? What was uncivil about this post? And how on earth is it suspension-worthy?

Edited October 28, 2011 by Mike Reed

[William Schryver]

I am utterly stunned by the temerity of the bluff in Smith's post above! Stunned!

I have prepared a detailed reply where I have actually pulled in all the text behind every one of the links he provides. But I have decided to delay posting my reply in order to challenge someone, anyone to follow the links Smith has provided and then attempt to identify in the video and posts behind them anything that you believe constitutes a substantive counter-argument to my arguments that the EA/GAEL is dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

Folks, this is the kind of thing Smith has been doing for over a year. Trust me, he is absolutely counting on the fact that no one will bother to "source check" him on this. So put him to the test! Source check this guy. For once! Someone call his bluff.

I have identified, in all of the stuff to which he linked, a single bona fide counter-argument. One. That’s all. Frankly, it’s silly. I have addressed it in my reply.

But, until I post my reply (probably first thing in the morning), would someone please refuse to let this guy off the hook on this one. Please. Someone. Source check Smith on this one. Don't let him get away with a lame bluff this time like he has so many times in the past. Put him to the test!

I have fixed all the links he provided that won’t work. Here they are:

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Metcalfe Post

Here’s a link to my 14 minute video argument for the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing BoA: Dependency of the EA/GAEL on BoA

Again, please someone, check these links out. See what Smith has done.

Absolutely incredible. No wonder he wants to avoid a formal debate.

Edited October 28, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mike Reed]

Lets compare:

What I can't believe most of all is that, after you clicked "Post" on what you knew very well was a dodge and a deception, that you ran over to your home board to pawn it off on what you knew were the ignorant masses to be found there.

That's pretty pathetic stuff, Chris. Pretty pathetic. Although it does really highlight what must be your primary motivation in pursuing a career as an anti-Mormon: you started off in it because you wanted to prove that the girl that dumped you had made a big mistake, but now you're in it for nothing more complex than the acclaim you get from ex-Mormons who don't know any better.

Very revealing stuff. Very, very revealing. Kind of sad, too.

Please avoid board wars and personal remarks. We don't care what they do on other boards- don't bring it back here. Thank you, Ares

Will,

I am not here to "play." I am here to remind you that you aren't entitled to other people's work. You will get it soon enough. As George informed you, you will need to wait until MHA. If you don't go (and take up his kind offer to eat dinner with you)... you might have to wait for its publication.

Patience is a virtue.

In the mean time... why don't you focus your efforts on finding a publisher for your work? Or have you found one already?

The last page of posts look very civil until this. You will be suspended if you change the tone of the thread. It looks like everyone is clear that Mr. Miller is prevented from responding at this time. Minos

Compare my tone to Will's, as well as moderator comments to both of our posts. Will's rant gets a please and thank you. Mine, on the other hand, a suspension threat. Ridiculous.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Chris Smith]

Source check this guy.

Yes, please do. Don't take William's word for it.

No wonder I want to avoid a formal debate with this guy.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Xander]

Lets compare:

Compare my tone to Will's, as well as moderator comments to both of our posts. Will's rant gets a please and thank you. Mine, on the other hand, a suspension threat. Ridiculous.

Mike, why do you appear shocked at this? This is precisely why this environment is suffocating to those who actually know something about this subject, and it is precisely why Will runs over here whenever he feels it is time for him to say something on this subject. There are dozens of threads that Will completely abandoned on the other forum, because I pointed out his numerous errors with irrefutable proof. I've posted several responses here and elsewhere refuting his arguments in detail, but he refuses to engage them, claiming with his usual cop-out that I am too "irrelevant" and don't deserve a response. Wills problem is that he refuses to acknowledge the simple and undeniable fact that his entire method (substantial word counts!) for determining a preexistent narrative is one of his own making. He made it up. It has no basis in scholarly methodology. He glosses over the fact that his method for determining which words were "substantial" was highly subjective, and appears to be a classic example of a conclusion driving the evidence (and method). He also refuses to acknowledge the overwhelming fact that the Book of Abraham narrative is largely pulled from the Book of Genesis. Amazingly, many Latter-day Saints, including William, aren't familiar enough with their own scriptures to realize this.

[Xander]

, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six (just for the heck of it). Then there's the published paper you completely ignored in your presentation. And there's this post by Brent. And this is just scratching the surface. The rebuttals are so abundant that it must have taken a special kind of amnesia to forget about them.

After your behavior here, probably not. But talk to me again in January after I'm done with my quals.

Check, and Mate. But then, this has been rehearsed before. Over the past six years Will comes to the forum after months of hiatus, claiming no one has ever addressed his arguments. Well, I could add another dozen threads that easily address his arguments and expose his abject ignorance on this subject. But he won't respond to them. He never does.

[Eldwynn]

I really found it difficult to follow the personal attacks and chest thumping in this thread. I guess there is truth to the idea that being so unattractive in real life makes you a bully on a message board.

However, am I following this right? <I chose Neurobiology as my field of study, not Egyptian. I do not regret this, because I am positive it pays better >

1) Critics claimed that the Papyri recovered was a common Egyptian Funerary text (the Book of Breathings or whatever). They claimed that this is an example of Joseph Smith's translating in action, and its evidence that it failed.

2) Forty years later, Will finds a reason that the Papyri recovered (The BOB) may not have been what was translated to yield the Book of Abraham. It was just PART of a long scroll (we don't have the whole thing) or some other similar explanation.

Could someone whos time is less valuable than Will's let me know if I am missing something here?

If this is the case, then at BEST we are back to square one, with the burden of proof still on the apologists shoulders to prove that Abraham A) existed and B) wrote an autobiography. Along with the fact that C) Joseph Smith got his hands on it, D) Joseph Smith translated it by the power of God and E) That pre-mentioned supernatural powers are the only way he COULD have translated it. Finally, you still have to account for F) what happened to the section of the scroll that got burned in the fire.

That is if you ever want a serious discussion in the scientific world. If you don't, then by all means carry on.

PS. Actually, I will be nice, we can assume A.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Eldwynn

[Xander]

I've been away from the boards and will probably be away for another few months. I'm not planning to get back into this in any detail until I get everything moved into our new home, including all my books and files on the subject. I'm also dealing with personal issues involving the death of a friend, but I wanted to at least offer a quick response to William's initial post before leaving it to Chris and Andrew, if they're so inclined.

In my years of delving into the details of the controversy surrounding Joseph Smith’s production of the Book of Abraham, I’m always amazed at how much propaganda, misinformation, and outright ignorance is out there when it comes to this topic—especially in the world of Mormon-related message boards.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the evidence overwhelming shows that it is the LDS side that is more guilty of this.

A prime example is currently getting some air time on one of those boards, which is dominated by ex-Mormons.

"Dominated by ex-Mormons" is an overstatement. It is owned by an ex-Mormon but the participants and the moderators comprise a diverse group. There are some ex-Mormons but there are many Mormons too. There are also struggling Mormons and people who have never been Mormon. So what? The forum doesn't suffer from constant micro management by hyper-senstive moderators. Threads are never closed unless laws are broken. People are rarely ever suspended or reprimanded in any way. So why suggest a bias in the audience when what really matters is how the administrators throw their weight around in a subjective way? Debate isn't stiffled there, it is stiffled here, because critics have to constantly walk on egg shells, knowing anything they say can be subjectively interpreted by a believing moderator as "uncivil." Just look at the contrast in treatment between you and Mike Reed. This is a home field advantage forum, and you know it. It is why you only pretend to be interested in a "debate" when you're over here. It is also why knwoeldgable critics feel you're not really worthy of their time. You have an overblown sense of self importance which most of us find amusing.

In light of the false assumptions upon which that particular post is dependent, I thought I might take advantage of this occasion to explain one thing every defender of the faith should understand when it comes to the Book of Abraham controversy.

Asserting there are false assumptions isn't an argument, but bald assertions consume so much of Will's rhetoric my sense is that he'll just hope people will take it for granted that he speaks from an authoritative position. He doesn't. As someone very familiar with his method and arguments, I can state quite emphatically that William Schryver has a very difficult time properly representing these documents and he has an even more difficult time comprehending the arguments leveled against his numerous theses.

For almost half a century, critics have asserted that Joseph Smith believed that the Book of Abraham was a translation of an Egyptian text commonly called the “Book of Breathings.”

Yes, and that is precisely what Mormon experts believed as well when the papyri were rediscovered in the late 60's. The Church apologists only started moving away from that belief when it became perfectly clear that the text had nothing to do with Abraham or a Book of Abraham. At that point, the "Church had to be true" mentaility prevailed over all logical deduction of evidence. So the critics have the advantage of being able to maintain the same position while the apologists have a history of squirming, constantly cojuring up one argument after another that they'd eventually abandon , entertaining any wild "possibility" so long as it doesn't include the obvious: that Joseph Smith believed this text was the source for the Book of Abraham. Why Will thinks reminding us of this is somehow a knock against our credibility, is beyond me. Our argument doesn't change because it doesn't need to. Will can only attack it by misrepresenting it, or pretending it is based on just one or two "assumptions." This is not an honest assessment by any stretch. Anyone remotely familiar with the critical view knows that Will's silly "two minute" synopsis doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of evidences used to support this argument.

This two-minute-long video presentation explains the basic elements of the argument: Abraham Manuscripts Explanation

No it doesn't. It avoids the strongest evidence supporting it. But then, that is what it was designed to do. The fact is the Book of Abraham text explicitly refers to the record as the text which followed the "representation" in Facsimile #1, which is canonized by the Church. So far your only response on textaul grounds is an argument that says this verse was a latter addition, based on your untrained and highly subjective interpretation of a letter slightly overlapping another in one of the manuscripts. An argument so ridiculous that it was easily decimated by Metcalfe as soon as you advertised it. Years later, you're still hanging on to your argument and constantly referring to it as "conclusive." This is just sales talk, of course. In three years you have never been able to provide a single text critic who confirmed your analysis and the evidence you presented online was easily shown to argue the exact opposite of what you tried to make it say.

This is probably the assertion most frequently made by Mormon critics. It is the underlying assumption of much of what the critic writes in the post I linked above. But the assertion is without merit, as I demonstrated in my 2010 presentation entitled The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (links below for those interested).

The number of people who think this is what you did, isn't impressive, and the number appears to be shrinking. In fact, you're having a very hard time convincing the more informed LDS folks that anything you argued in your videos, holds water. Your little fan club seems to consist strictly of Mormons from LDS message forums, who are quick to praise your argument based on what it claims to prove, even though they are unable to explain what it is you argued or why it is correct.

Why is the argument false? Because the Abraham Manuscripts that contain characters from the Book of Breathings in the left column were produced AFTER the original translation of the Book of Abraham. They are not the “original translation manuscripts” of the Book of Abraham.

Of course the narrative preexisted. It existed in Joseph Smith's mind and much of it was a tweaked version of numerous Genesis scriptures. But what you're needing to argue is that the exact narrative existed "on paper" before these documents were produced, which is an argument that is inherently weak for the simple reason that you have to invent a missing text for which there is no evidence. There is absolutely no reason to believe a mysterious Q document existed, or that it would fail to survive the collection of manuscripts we have today. We have the Original Book of Mormon manuscript and also the Printers manuscript. But for apologetic reasons, we need it to be true that the diverse collection of surviving Book of Abraham manuscripts can be neither the original nor secondary. No, they have to be copies of copies in the handwriting of multiple scribes. Have you explained a plausible explanation for the existence of multiple copies of copies in the handwriting of multiple scribes? No, you just ignore it and pretend it doesn't weigh against your theory. The "we don't know" what they were doing or thinking argument simply doesn't work. You have to at least provide a coherent, plausible scenario by which Joseph Smith would require several hired scribes to make copies of an error-ridden copy, while writing an Egyptian character in sequence, from the wrong papyrus! Your line of argument has changed so much, that you've managed to contradict what the LDS Church has claimed in publication. You assert, with no evidence whatsoever, that the papyri were not needed for translation because the Bible was translated without original manuscripts. Consistency forced you to argue further the novel idea that the golden plates were not needed nor were they used in his Book of Mormon translation. You think you can argue this without explaining why he did need and use them, or why God felt it was necessary that generations of ancient Americans supposedly sacrifice their own blood and sweat to preserve a record on plates which, according to you, was never really needed to begin with. In a nutshell, your biggest deficiency is your unwillingness to deal with any of the problems in your various theories. When confronted with these problems, your responses are entirely antagonistic and dismissive, which is why scholars like Don and Chris are more inclined to just ignore you. We're all tired of you complaining no one has paid any attention to you, or that no one has responded to you when we all know we have in detail. All the while you have the luxury of having no reputation as a scholar, which means you're at liberty to be as antagonistic and crude as you like towards true scholars like Miller, Smith and Bradley.

How do we know this? Because we know that the Abraham Manuscripts were produced after a set of documents called the Egyptian Alphabet, and there is conclusive evidence that the Alphabet (and subsequent "Grammar" documents) are dependent on a pre-existing text of the already translated Book of Abraham.

First of all, who is this "we" you keep referring to? Don't you think it is the epitome of arrogance to declare virtually everything your creative mind conjures up, "conclusive" and then go on to present it as if it is backed by a consensus "we" among credible scholars? Your argument here is nothing more than a bald assertion supported by a conclusion driven methodology that has no utility in text criticism. The world's most reputable and credible text critics would have a difficult time passing this off as a valid method if they made it up over night, but you seem to think your theory, which is ad hoc and apologetic by its very nature, somehow carries enough authoritative weight to survive all skepticism. Sorry, but welcome to the real world.

Therefore the manuscripts that contain characters from the Book of Breathings in the left column cannot be, as the critics have long asserted, the “original translation manuscripts” of the Book of Abraham.

The funny thing about this line of attack is that it really means little in the grand scheme. Let's just go ahead and say you're right. For the sake of argument, we don't have the original translation manuscript. You still have to explain why Joseph Smith and his scribes associated the "preexistent" narrative from a mysterious, missing "Q document" with the wrong papyrus! For all your talk about theories failing because they rest on assumptions, no positions rests on more assumptions than those conjured up by apologists. Ultimately, you're left adopting Nibley's desperate theory that says the scribes were either acting alone (contra Sam Brown) and that every single one of them failed to realize they were translating the wrong papyrus. Historical accounts show that Joseph Smith made it clear to his viewers which papyrus scroll represented the Book of Abraham, and yet mysteriously, his closest associates somehow got confused and identified the wrong portion from the wrong scroll (from, according to Gee, 40+feet of available papyri!). And while Joseph Smith was sharing with them the secrets about the original language of Adam, he was keeping his scribes in the dark as to which papyrus roll contained the Book of Abraham! You don't seem to understand that for most people, this, along with the published facsimiles of the same papyrus, along with the direct reference in Abr 1:12, is enough to pound home the point that the earliest Mormons, including Joseph Smith and his scribes, believed the Breathings text was the source for the Book of Abraham. The apologetic account is just too ludicrous to accept. All you have done is response is essentially argue over minute and irrelevant details that ignore the larger problem. You're attacking the coffin nail, which is essentially the purported original manuscript that includes characters, in sequence, from the Breathings text. This you do for the sake of salvaging a sense of "possibility" (which apologists quickly refer to as "plausibility") that only the scribes were wrong about this and not the Prophet. Because obviously, if the KEP contain the original manuscript, the most rationale and logical conclusion is that Joseph Smith was a fraud.You said so yourself a few years ago. So everything you're doing is designed to save Joseph, not get to the truth. Your method is to cast doubt on the argument (and aspersions on those who make it) that the KEP contain the original dictated Book of Abraham manuscript. You'll ridicule the mere thought along with anyone who suggests it is a reasonable position to take, but you'll never do so in the context of addressing the plethora of evidence supporting it. You never have. This is the problem so many critics have with you. And now you are beating your chest at Chris, knowing perfectly well he won't engage people who act that way. You do this because you want to "win the moment" with your select crowd of LDS apologists in training. If you ever intended to address your critics you would have done so by now. There are a dozen+ threads at the other forum which respond directly to your FAIR presentation. In many of them you show up just to make pithy and immature comments that attack your critics.

When I reminded you of numerous threads you had failed to respond to, your only response to me was:

"Incidentally, I had almost forgotten how full of s*** you are. It didn't take you long to remind me."

And then you quickly left the premises. So forgive me if I fail to give you the benefit of the doubt when you claim to know of no responses to your arguments. You cannot pretend to be unaware of such responses. Disagree with our arguments if you must, but don't sit there are say you have not been engaged.

Now you want to imply that Chris is afraid of you, but the fact is you are at this forum because you know you are the one with the home field advantage. This means most of the things I post here, including references to past evidences that refute your current nonsense, will be immediately deleted by a Schryver-friendly moderator. There is no home field advantage over at the other forum because the moderators don't interfere with discussions. They don't have a dog in the fights and can afford to let the debates play themselves out regardless of outcome.That is why you no longer post there. You cannot win a debate on a level playing field

You pulled this stunt when you challenged Metcalfe to a debate and then backed out of it after he called your bluff. Of course you had to immediately set the rules and conditions to such an extreme that you knew he wouldn't bother. You've been bluffing for years when it comes to your numerous claims and arguments. I've gone back and read your posts from early 2006 and saw a number of promises you made regarding upcoming publications, support from experts, proofs that would refute the critics. Bluffing is what you do.

This five-minute-long video presentation explains the nature and contents of the Alphabet and Grammar documents: Alphabet and Grammar Explanation

As I demonstrated in other threads on the other forum, you misrepresented those documents in several places. This was brought to your attention and your only response in the thread was that you didn't feel I was worthy of response. How convenient.

Most importantly, this fourteen-minute-long video presentation demonstrates the dependency of the Alphabet and Grammar on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham: Dependency of the Alphabet and Grammar on Pre-existing Book of Abraham.

Demonstrates, according to whom? According to you and you alone. I've yet to see a single expert, LDS or not, sign off on your theory. On the contrary, I've seen several reputable LDS scholars distance themselves from it.

To present the entirely of the evidence I have accumulated would require several hours, but what I manage to present in fourteen minutes is sufficient for my purposes, and I encourage everyone to judge for themselves.

What you presented didn't even begin to establish what you hoped to prove. Again, your methodology came from where...? Your imagination, that's where. This is really all we need to know to justify a quick dismissal, but we addressed it anyway. You don't get to invent some silly methodology and then demand everyone refute it to your satisfaction. It stands as its own refutation when you cannot explain why it should be accepted as legitimate in the first place.

Daniel McClellan, whom I regard as one of the LDS rising stars in textual criticism

Oh I'm sure you do. You must really feel isolated now that so many LDS folks have have refused to accept and support your positions on the KEP. First it was Brian Hauglid who was your star text critic who was going to prove all the critics wrong in an upcoming book. But we saw how that played itself out didn't we? Hauglid gradually distanced himself from you and your apologetic agenda. He now refuses to be called an apologist anymore, and all the things he was supposed to prove in his book were eventually dropped. During the three year period of suspense you created for us, the critics were shown nothing until you decided to abandon the entire text critical approach and then conjured up your cipher theory which was lauded as the ultimate "game changer." I don't know why you think you're in a strong position to dictate "conclusiveness" when your arguments are always "conclusive" before they're published or peer reviewed and they're always "conclusive" before they become something entirely different a year or two later. All of your arguments cannot be true, and yet you always present them as "conclusive" in your "estimation." Your only consistency is that you keep changing yoru arguments.

, argued very persuasively for this conclusion in this 2010 message board discussion: Zub Zool Oan and Abraham 1:2b-3. His argument is based on an examination of a small portion of the text, but his methodology clearly applies to the whole. I look forward to his further examination of the question when he has finished his doctorate.

From what I remember from that exchange, Daniel refused to endorse your chosen methodology. And he was also corrected on a number of false assumptions and errors he had adopted during his preliminary analysis. But that was to be expected since he was new to this subject and had yet to analyze the documents in detail. Ultimately, Daniel argued for a preexisting Q docuemnt, but for different reasons. It is a convenient and attractive conclusion to make for apologists, but instead of relying strictly on the data to arrive to that conclusion, apologists tend to start with the conclusion and then create their own connection back to something resembling an argument.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Xander

[Pahoran]

I really found it difficult to follow the personal attacks and chest thumping in this thread. I guess there is truth to the idea that being so unattractive in real life makes you a bully on a message board.

Clearly there is no truth to the idea that only Mormons indulge in personal attacks.

Regards,

Pahoran

[William Schryver]

/snip long rant lighter than air/

Proving the point I will make in the new thread I am starting, since this one has run its course, and no one has yet taken up my invitation to actually check out the sources/links Chris Smith provided to allegedly demonstrate where he has presented counter-arguments to the Primary Thesis of my 2010 FAIR Conference Address, wherein I carefully demonstrate the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the BoA. We will take up that theme in the next thread, starting with Smith's alleged rebuttal of it.

I will say this: I have yet to see anyone, and I mean anyone who can write more and say less than Kevin Graham. It is an absolute gift. I am convinced that, were he to write a novel, it could very possibly raise the Hindenburg.

As for "Eldwynn's" post. I have yet to see he/her say anything that could not be blown away with the slightest breath. I have reason to suppose s/he has once again gone into stasis and will not bother us again.

At any rate, please stand by while I prepare the next thread which will examine whether or not Chris Smith has ever yet provided even a single counter-argument capable of articulation, let alone of sufficient weight to make a mark ...

[William Schryver]

Since the purpose of this thread ran a very successful course and has led to a new topic, for which I have initiated a new thread, I am therefore closing this thread to further posts.

My thanks to all for your contributions, even Eldwynn.

ETA: Wow, over 3000 views in less than 48 hours. That's a pretty hot topic!

Edited again to add: I have just taken the opportunity to view Chris's late night post concerning characters from the EA on the papyri, and I confess he has convinced me there are several more characters from page 2 (part 2) of the EA that derive from the papyri. I think, if we consider bona fide dissections, there may be 16-18 total characters explained in the EA that appear on the papyri. That's more than the "very few exceptions" I have thought in the past.

I will modify my future discussions to include this fact.

I will note that the thrust of my historical argument remains unaffected by this new information: there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 "explained" characters in the EA/GAEL that, by all indications, have no relationship to the papyri. That fact remains unexplained.

Edited October 28, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Seeing as how Ben McGuire expressed a desire to post something additional to this thread, and seeing that several people are still viewing it this morning, I have decided to open it back up for a little while longer, just in case there are some "final words" a few people wanted to offer on it. I really want to shift focus to the new thread I've started, but I'm willing to have people say any last things they felt they wanted to say on this thread before I then close it permanently.

I do invite all supporters of Chris Smith's claim to have rebutted my EA/GAEL dependency thesis to check out the new thread I've started where you are invited to explain to us why the dependency thesis is not tenable.

ETA: Ok, well it looks pretty dead now, so I'm closing it for good. Thanks to everyone for their contributions.

Edited October 28, 2011 by William Schryver