Ancient "non-utilitarian" metal bow found in Arabian Peninsula

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I don't consider myself an "anti-Book of Mormon critic" per se, but I've addressed a number of these points, as well as several others, on this board: Nahom, Khor Kharfot, hieratic script, writing on metal plates, the Brass Plates, autobiographical writing, scribalization of prophecy, etc. RT at Faith-Promoting Rumor has compiled a massive list of arguments against the historicity of 1 Nephi (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). The cumulative case he makes is, I think, devastating. But as far as I can tell it has been greeted with silence from you and just about every other apologist. Jeff Lindsay, to his credit, attempted a response, but was way out of his depth.

Actually, RT first  broached this subject back on March 8, 2014, online at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2014/05/the-book-of-mormon-as-myth-and-more-on-the-name-alma/ , and I sent him back to the drawing boards with a discussion which frequently brought him up short.  However, he at least bothered to carry on a substantive discussion, and even admitted when he was wrong.  Even though I rarely get over to Faith Promoting Rumor, I recently read his part one, above, and was impressed with the detailed discussion which goes on at book length.  I fully intend to read his parts two and three, and to respond, and am always happy to see that someone actually takes the Book of Mormon seriously enough to carry on a substantive discussion.

However, his part one was seriously flawed with misinformation and failure to exercise reasonable judgment.  I hope that he uses this opportunity to hone his arguments well and to publish them as a book (hopefully under his real name).

I will make the effort to examine the items you list above, Nevo, and see whether they have any substance.

[cinepro]

I can only imagine an LDS archaeologist 1,000 years from now citing an excavation of my boyhood bedroom as evidence that humans in the 20th century had X-wings and Colonial Vipers, and that therefore the events recounted in the Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica lore are, in fact, historical accounts.

Granted, it wouldn't be absolute evidence, but it would be incremental.

Edited March 12, 2016 by cinepro

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, RT first  broached this subject back on March 8, 2014, online at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2014/05/the-book-of-mormon-as-myth-and-more-on-the-name-alma/ , and I sent him back to the drawing boards with a discussion which frequently brought him up short.  However, he at least bothered to carry on a substantive discussion, and even admitted when he was wrong.  Even though I rarely get over to Faith Promoting Rumor, I recently read his part one, above, and was impressed with the detailed discussion which goes on at book length.  I fully intend to read his parts two and three, and to respond, and am always happy to see that someone actually takes the Book of Mormon seriously enough to carry on a substantive discussion.

However, his part one was seriously flawed with misinformation and failure to exercise reasonable judgment.  I hope that he uses this opportunity to hone his arguments well and to publish them as a book (hopefully under his real name).

I will make the effort to examine the items you list above, Nevo, and see whether they have any substance.

I have no doubt that you will find them all lacking if you find RT's analysis seriously flawed and unreasonable. In any case, an Internet discussion board isn't the best place to look for substantive arguments. I readily admit that I don't spend days or weeks researching and drafting my posts. 

I look forward to reading your response to RT's points. But, to be frank, your hand-waving dismissal of Part 1 as "seriously flawed with misinformation and failure to exercise reasonable judgment" and your inflated appraisal of your earlier discussion with RT ("I sent him back to the drawing boards") doesn't inspire much confidence that you are up to the task. RT isn't your intellectual or scholarly inferior so I hope you will actually engage his arguments rather than indulge in posturing.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I can only imagine an LDS archaeologist 1,000 years from now citing an excavation of my boyhood bedroom as evidence that humans in the 20th century had X-wings and Colonial Vipers, and that therefore the events recounted in the Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica lore are, in fact, historical accounts.

Granted, it wouldn't be absolute evidence, but it would be incremental.

Actually, cinepro, several imaginative writers have conjured up the story of alien archeologists coming to Earth eons from now and trying to draw reasonable, learned conclusions from their excavations -- often sophisticated, but very wrong and very funny conclusions.  One particularly cute account had such aliens concluding that the presence of McDonald's arches all over the world, but mainly in America, were part of a cult of the Archies, which centered on the great Arch in St Louis, Missouri.

The problem with your invidious comparison, however, is that the technology of bows, arrows, and quivers was not a matter of sci fi, but was well-known worldwide.  That models were made is no more absurd than that I and many another boy used to make balsa wood models of actual flying machines decades ago.  To conclude from those models that real F-86s were either made of balsa wood, or that they did not exist seems rather tendentious.  Is that really how you imagine that archeologists think?

Edited March 12, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Right. And bronze replicas of bows and arrows show that Iron Age II inhabitants of Arabia knew about bows and arrows. That's it.

That's what I said. To postulate to the Americas goes beyond what the evidence shows.

[canard78]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Evidence that mid-twentieth century Americans wore metal shoes:

Than Nevo. I'm glad someone else has some sense. 

[canard78]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

No. That object just means that mid-twentieth century Americans knew about shoes.

Bingo. So a bronze, non-functional, likely ornamental, bow means they knew about bows. Not functional metal bows.

EDIT: I see Nevo has more eloquently made the same point. 

Edited March 12, 2016 by canard78
Duplicated point

[canard78]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am willing to leave such judgments to disinterested third party professionals who actually understand archeology.  As for New World Mormon professionals like Brant Gardner, Mark Wright, John Clark, John Sorenson, et al., they do provide a very realistic purview.  Apart from that, personal value judgments play a big role, often subject to preconceived assumptions.

Again, I agree with you. Personal value judgements are indeed subject to preconceived assumptions.  Would you agree that your preconceived assumption that, for example, the Book of Mormon is true, has influenced your acceptance that this bronze ornament is incremental evidence for the book?

[Robert F. Smith]

26 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I have no doubt that you will find them all lacking if you find RT's analysis seriously flawed and unreasonable. In any case, an Internet discussion board isn't the best place to look for substantive arguments. I readily admit that I don't spend days or weeks researching and drafting my posts. 

I look forward to reading your response to RT's points. But, to be frank, your hand-waving dismissal of Part 1 as "seriously flawed with misinformation and failure to exercise reasonable judgment" and your inflated appraisal of your earlier discussion with RT ("I sent him back to the drawing boards") doesn't inspire much confidence that you are up to the task. RT isn't your intellectual or scholarly inferior so I hope you will actually engage his arguments rather than indulge in posturing.

Nice a priori dismissal of anything I might say (preemptive strike?), and suggests that you didn't bother to read my earlier conversation with RT.  As for "hand-waving," I thought that your non-substantive response to Jeff Lindsay was all of that and nothing more.  I deal in substance, not posturing, as anyone having spent time on this board would know.  Since you have been on this board longer than me, what do you really have to show for it?  Have you learned yet to be respectful of other opinions, to deal in substance rather than rumor, and the like?  Or do you merely provide a counter-apologetic view to anything the apologists might say?

RT did in fact go back to the drawing boards, spent several years writing a more detailed analysis of the early Book of Mormon, and has now come forth with it.  I did read part one, and found it contained a good deal of misinformation and a failure to exercise reasonable judgment.  I suppose that is because he is anti-Book of Mormon at the outset, just as there are people who are pro-Book of Mormon as the outset.  Nothing wrong with either approach, but we should not let that color our analysis.  Unfortunately, he (like you) has allowed his a priori views to color his analysis.

[canard78]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am willing to leave such judgments to disinterested third party professionals who actually understand archeology.  As for New World Mormon professionals like Brant Gardner, Mark Wright, John Clark, John Sorenson, et al., they do provide a very realistic purview.  Apart from that, personal value judgments play a big role, often subject to preconceived assumptions.

Also... out of interest, which disinterested third party professionals are going to comment on whether this stands as evidence for the Book of Mormon?

If you felt that way in the first place, why did you make the initial point that this is actually incremental evidence for the BoM? Why say so if you were first going to wait for the judgements of third party archaeologists. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

I don't consider myself an "anti-Book of Mormon critic" per se, but I've addressed a number of these points, as well as several others, on this board: Nahom, Khor Kharfot, -----------------------------------------------

I have dealt with your comments on Khor Karfot in that recent thread.  However, as to your long ago comments on Nahom (before I was even on this board):

David P. Wright (quoted by you) fails to grasp that the -om -um ending in Semitic languages is quite common, that the Jaredites come from Mesopotamia (where their association with Semitic Akkadian is very strong), and that not every -om ending is automatically non-consonantal.  No competent linguist would make those errors.
 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Also... out of interest, which disinterested third party professionals are going to comment on whether this stands as evidence for the Book of Mormon?

If you felt that way in the first place, why did you make the initial point that this is actually incremental evidence for the BoM? Why say so if you were first going to wait for the judgements of third party archaeologists. 

You are the one objecting to my considered opinion, canard, which would be backed up by a typical non-Mormon professional.  The onus is on you to find one and suit yourself that he is in fact just such a disinterested non-Mormon professional.  It can be dangerous and disorienting for anti-Mormons, though.  I can recall the great Rev. Wesley Walters seeking out the written opinion of his then Prof. William F. Albright on Book of Mormon names.  His assumptions backfired, as they did decades later when another anti-Mormon did the same thing, and ended up with the same result -- damaging to his own a priori views.

I did not create this latest set of artifacts.  I merely observe that they are very interesting and incremental evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.

[canard78]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

Sometimes, delightful condescension is required and enjoyed.  And the "if you say this your judgment is in question" argument is pretty silly and totally uncalled for, but used a lot here when someone makes a judgment others dislike.  People use their own minds to form judgments based on a plethora of influences.  Just because you are unable to reach the same judgment as Robert does NOT speak to his judgment anymore than it speaks to your inability to form intelligent conclusions. 

You don't need to be offended on Robert's behalf. He and I have dialogued at length and he's always been willing to let me know when he feels my judgement is in question. I appreciate him saying so as, often, it gives me the opportunity to reflect on where my judgment and conclusions might be clouded or under-developed. 

To your actual point though, I don't agree. If google maps gave you directions that sent you on an incorrect route, would you trust their directions as much next time?

Robert has written extensively on Book of Mormon evidences. He's written in areas, such as Egyptology, where I don't know enough about the topic to conclude whether he's making valid observations and arguments. 

So if he is to establish himself as an historical writer and Mormon apologist then it should be reasonable that people make judgement calls about his evaluation of evidences. His evaluation of this particular "evidence" and his apparent readiness to accept it makes me feel less confident in the other evidence he presents. 

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I can only imagine an LDS archaeologist 1,000 years from now citing an excavation of my boyhood bedroom as evidence that humans in the 20th century had X-wings and Colonial Vipers, and that therefore the events recounted in the Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica lore are, in fact, historical accounts.

Granted, it wouldn't be absolute evidence, but it would be incremental.

Yeah but could they tell you were LDS?

 

[canard78]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are the one objecting to my considered opinion, canard, which would be backed up by a typical non-Mormon professional.  The onus is on you to find one and suit yourself that he is in fact just such a disinterested non-Mormon professional.  It can be dangerous and disorienting for anti-Mormons, though.  I can recall the great Rev. Wesley Walters seeking out the written opinion of his then Prof. William F. Albright on Book of Mormon names.  His assumptions backfired, as they did decades later when another anti-Mormon did the same thing, and ended up with the same result -- damaging to his own a priori views.

I did not create this latest set of artifacts.  I merely observe that they are very interesting and incremental evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.

How? How are these artifacts actual incremental evidence in favour of the Book of Mormon. 

You've said they are, and given me a long lecture about incremental evidence, but you've not actually explained why and how it is evidence. 

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, canard78 said:

How? How are these artifacts actual incremental evidence in favour of the Book of Mormon. 

You've said they are, and given me a long lecture about incremental evidence, but you've not actually explained why and how it is evidence. 

As I said at the outset above:  " Archeological evidence is always incremental.  It never stands on its own.  This discovery simply shows that the technology to make such weapons (bow, quiver, and arrows) existed in Lehi's day in South Arabia.  There was heretofore no such direct evidence, something which the naysayers always demand.  Of course, we already knew that such technology existed in Judah in Lehi's time."

Maybe I am simply too slow to get it.  Please explain to me the flaw in my statement.  Thanks..

[PeterPear]

Maybe what the archeologists discovered was an orchestra pit and these were the bows for the string section. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

:............................... hieratic script, .........................................

In his May 2014 discussion, RT said:

Quote

“the idea that the BoM was written in Egyptian characters is also extremely anachronistic.”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2014/05/the-book-of-mormon-as-myth-and-more-on-the-name-alma/ .

In your May 2015 reply to Neal Rappleye on this board, you said:

Quote

 

Quote

On 5/25/2015 at 11:26 AM, nealr said:
The short version is that Nephi's phrasing is a fitting description of how hieratic (an Egyptian script) was being used in Judah in the late 7th century BC

I look forward to seeing your evidence for this, as I was under the impression that hieratic wasn't used at all in Judah in the late 7th century except to write numbers. If Nephi somehow mastered the complicated hieratic numeral system it might point to a scribal education but it wouldn't mean that he was conversant in "the language of the Egyptians" (whether hieratic or some form of demotic).

Even if we envision Nephi having a scribal education, which might conceivably have included training in "Egyptian" of some description, it's hard to see how this would also apply to Lehi, as required by 1 Nephi 2. The text seems to require that Lehi be a trained scribe (whence "the language of the Egyptians"), a skilled metalsmith/jeweller (whence the family's supply of "gold and . . . silver"), and a caravaneer (whence the ready availability of tents and provisions and pack animals for an extended journey). It's an incongruous combination of occupations to say the least.  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65410-learning-of-the-jews-language-of-the-egyptians/#comment-1209498234 .

On May 27, 2015, I replied as follows to Bernard Gui:

Quote

 

Quote

On 5/26/2015 at 1:33 AM, Bernard Gui said:
Nephi demonstrated metalworking skills when he fabricated tools, replaced his bow, and made plates. He probably learned that from his father. Both men were highly capable and literate, judging from the quality and quantity of their writings.

Highly skilled metalsmiths and literate in Egyptian would suggest advanced training in both, perhaps part of a wide-ranging family (clan) business (note the Qenite smithing specialty).  Their possession of jewels and gold and their deep interest in the Brass Plates further indicate their elite status, and suggests a reason for their training in Egyptian (scribal work on the Plates).  Because we lack the book of Lehi, we cannot place these things in context.

However, we could speculate that the Manassite clan from which Lehi came were once scribes (a century before) at the royal court in Samaria of the Northern Kingdom.  Based on the widespread use of hieratic Egyptian in Israel and Judah before and during the lifetime of Lehi, non-Mormon scholar Stefan Wimmer has suggested that Egyptians could have come to Judah, or Jewish scribes could have been sent to Egypt for training.  Others have suggested Phoenicia as the likeliest venue for an Egyptian scribal school.  The late non-Mormon scholar, Anson Rainey, concluded from the evidence that professional Hebrew scribes were using hieratic Egyptian at that very time.

Of course, the Bible gives no such hint of Egyptian usage. 

Quote

Quote
About Lehi and caravans, Nephi said Lehi had lived in Jerusalem in all his days. Wouldn't that indicate he was not a freguent traveller?

Well, he also had another estate outside of Jerusalem where his wealth was secreted (I Ne 3:22).  His official residence and business may have been centered in Jerusalem all his life, but that does not mean that he did not travel widely.  We simply do not know.  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65410-learning-of-the-jews-language-of-the-egyptians/#comment-1209498234 .

Edited March 12, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nice a priori dismissal of anything I might say (preemptive strike?), and suggests that you didn't bother to read my earlier conversation with RT.

I read it at the time and profited from it. It was a good discussion—"a model of intelligent and reasoned exchange" as TT put it—and I especially appreciated the irenic tone (often lacking when BoM critics and apologists face off). So I was surprised at the way you characterized the exchange here ("I sent him back to the drawing boards with a discussion which frequently brought him up short"), as though you had schooled RT. That is the sort of thing that strikes me as posturing, where you alone see clearly while everyone else is blinded by a priori assumptions and an inadequate grasp of the subject matter. Thus, you announce that you "dealt with" my comment on the other thread about Khor Kharfot even though you didn't specifically address any of the problems I mentioned. You simply asserted that I am "grasping at straws here and missing the big picture." Your stock response. And in this thread you allege that David Wright—who teaches Comparative Semitic Languages at Brandeis—"fails to grasp that the -om -um ending in Semitic languages is quite common," a mistake that "no competent linguist would make" (i.e., Professor Wright is not a competent linguist).

 

Edited March 12, 2016 by Nevo

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

You don't need to be offended on Robert's behalf. He and I have dialogued at length and he's always been willing to let me know when he feels my judgement is in question. I appreciate him saying so as, often, it gives me the opportunity to reflect on where my judgment and conclusions might be clouded or under-developed. 

To your actual point though, I don't agree. If google maps gave you directions that sent you on an incorrect route, would you trust their directions as much next time?

Robert has written extensively on Book of Mormon evidences. He's written in areas, such as Egyptology, where I don't know enough about the topic to conclude whether he's making valid observations and arguments. 

So if he is to establish himself as an historical writer and Mormon apologist then it should be reasonable that people make judgement calls about his evaluation of evidences. His evaluation of this particular "evidence" and his apparent readiness to accept it makes me feel less confident in the other evidence he presents. 

I was not offended for him.  I pitied you.  I find that people that folks who post like you did, questioning a person's ability to make judgments, is a pathetic way to treat people on a board.  You can disagree without comments like that.

And I might trust someone who misleads me once...or even twice.  It is called life.

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

Bingo. So a bronze, non-functional, likely ornamental, bow means they knew about bows. Not functional metal bows.

EDIT: I see Nevo has more eloquently made the same point. 

There is more than adequate evidence that the people living in the Saudi Peninsula knew about Bows and Arrows.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Quote

Robert F. Smith said:

Nice a priori dismissal of anything I might say (preemptive strike?), and suggests that you didn't bother to read my earlier conversation with RT.

Quote

Nevo said:

I read it at the time and profited from it. It was a good discussion—"a model of intelligent and reasoned exchange" as TT put it—and I especially appreciated the irenic tone (often lacking when BoM critics and apologists face off). So I was surprised at the way you characterized the exchange here ("I sent him back to the drawing boards with a discussion which frequently brought him up short"), as though you had schooled RT. That is the sort of thing that strikes me as posturing, where you alone see clearly while everyone else is blinded by a priori assumptions and an inadequate grasp of the subject matter. Thus, you announce that you "dealt with" my comment on the other thread about Khor Kharfot even though you didn't specifically address any of the problems I mentioned. You simply asserted that I am "grasping at straws here and missing the big picture." Your stock response. And in this thread you allege that David Wright—who teaches Comparative Semitic Languages at Brandeis—"fails to grasp that the -om -um ending in Semitic languages is quite common,[ that the Jaredites come from Mesopotamia (where their association with Semitic Akkadian is very strong), and that not every -om ending is automatically non-consonantal.]" a mistake that "no competent linguist would make" (i.e., Professor Wright is not a competent linguist).

I restored the crucial sentences which you left out here, Nevo.  You might pay closer attention to what in fact is being said, and then deal with the substance.  

Do I really need to go back to that previous thread, bring forward what I actually said about Khor Kharfot, and what you are unable to deal with?  Did you even bother to read it?

Actually David P. Wright is very competent and knowledgeable, which makes his false statement all the more unforgivable.  He evidently figured that in dealing with Mormons, there was no need to bring to bear real scholarship.  He is competent but contemptuous, and I have seen him do that sort of thing before -- since his excommunication.  A lot of lies have been bandied about, for which there can be no excuse.  Even when you are angry, you must tell the truth.  I used to have personal conversations with him when he was teaching at BYU, and I last saw him hold forth in defense of his book, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009), at the annual SBL meeting in San Francisco a few years ago.  He did a good job defending his book, and kept his cool, but then there were no Mormons on the panel to attack.

RT hasn't nearly the experience or preparation that I have had, and he wasn't really ready for our exchange.  So, yes, I did school him, and he did in fact go back to the drawing boards, and came forth with improved and more comprehensive material.  That is why I have recommended that he publish it as a book.  That does not mean that he is not in error in crucial ways, but only that he doesn't make the same old fashioned elementary mistakes most anti-Mormons have indulged in for years.  He at least makes an effort at being even-handed.  That is a plus.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Nevo]

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

RT hasn't nearly the experience or preparation that I have had, and he wasn't really ready for our exchange.  So, yes, I did school him . . .

 LOL. Well, Robert, I look forward to reading your self-published counterblast to RT's work if and when you get around to writing it. I trust it will at least improve on Jeff Lindsay's effort (whose exposure to critical biblical scholarship seems to be limited to Richard Eliott Friedman's popular 1987 bestseller, Who Wrote the Bible?).

Edited March 13, 2016 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Nevo said:

..............................., writing on metal plates,...................................................

4.  writing on metal plates,

Quote

Nevo, Sept 23, 2007, at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/28312-countermopologists-pet-theories-against-the-bom/?page=1 , ,

Now we know that there are a handful of examples of small amounts of material being written on up to four metal plates. There are still no examples of lengthy histories being recorded on metal plates.

Quote

Nevo, Sept 23, 2007, at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/28312-countermopologists-pet-theories-against-the-bom/#comment-1208266083  ,

...............I think it's probably safe to say that writing on metal plates was never a widespread practice in antiquity. Yet in the Book of Mormon metal plates are everywhere. We find an ancient Israelite record (the Brass Plates), various Nephite records (the Small Plates of Nephi, the Large Plates of Nephi, and the Plates of Mormon), and even a Jaredite record (!) written on metal plates--all consisting of implausibly lengthy texts. It frankly strains credulity.

False, Nevo.  The practice was certainly widespread, and consisted of more than just four plates.

Hugh Nibley and other scholars have discussed the various inscribed copper, bronze, silver, and gold plates used in ancient times in Egypt, Byblos, Palestine, etc.,[1] including Orphic gold plates buried with the dead, a Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi (Pyrgi Tablets), Metal Documents in Stone Boxes, an Etruscan Gold Book from 600 B.C. (a six-page 24-carat gold book bound with rings, found in a tomb in Bulgaria ca. 1943), and an eight-page cuneiform golden codex found in 2005 in Teheran, Iran (from the Achaemenid period and bound with four rings).  Aside from those, we have the the green jasper and gold heart-scarab from the Theban tomb of Sobekemsaf (17^th Dyn), with BD spell 30B incised on the gold baseplate,[2] and there are thin gold and silver foil amulets with ancient Egyptian decans depicted thereon, found in Sardinia and Carthage.[3]                                           

---

[1] Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 2^nd ed., CWHN V:105-107, citing (among others) W. F. Albright, AA Hebrew Letter of the Twelfth Century,@ BASOR, 73 (Feb 1939):9-13; E. Budge, Book of the Dead (London: British Museum/Longmans & Co., 1895), xix, n. 3; cf. C. Wilfred Griggs, “The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book,” BYU Studies, 22/3 (1982): 259–278 (Orphic gold plates buried with the dead); Philip C. Schmitz, AThe Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 115/4 (Oct - Dec 1995):559-575 (Pyrgi Tablets); H. Curtis Wright, AAncient Burials of Metal Documents in Stone Boxes,@ in J. Lundquist & S. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, 2 vols. (FARMS/Deseret, 1990), II:273-334; H. Curtis Wright, Modern Presentism and Ancient Metallic Epigraphy (SLC: Wings of Fire, 2006); John A. Tvedtnes, “Etruscan Gold Book from 600 B.C. Discovered,” Insights, 23/5 (2003):1,6 (6-page 24-carat gold book bound with rings, found in a tomb in Bulgaria ca. 1943); William J. Hamblin, ASacred Writing on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean,” FARMS Review,19/1 (2007):37-54; an 8-page cuneiform golden codex found in 2005 in Teheran, Iran (from the Achaemenid period and attached with four rings), can be seen online at http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2005/October2005/11-10.htm .

[2] I. E. S. Edwards, “Sebekemsaf’s ‘Heart Scarab’,” in P. Posener-Kriéger, ed., Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, 2 vols. (Cairo: IFAO, 1985), I:239-245, British Museum EA7876, http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zw7RbJ_kgOA/UwZ8xRkRZxI/AAAAAAAABhk/fnPoGjZ4ILc/s1600/ps328079_l.jpg ; see also Gianluca Miniaci and Susan La Neice, “Analytical Study of the First Royal Heart-Scarab Attributed to a Seventeenth Dynasty King, Sobekemsaf,” online at  http://www.academia.edu/8048280/Analytical_study_of_the_first_royal_Egyptian_heart-scarab_attributed_to_a_Seventeenth_Dynasty_king_Sobekemsaf .

[3] EEF email notice from Enrico Dirminti, Scuola di Specializzazione, University of Cagliari, Oct 2, 2013; J. Quack has them in his dissertation, which he is preparing for publication.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, Nevo said:

 LOL. Well, Robert, I look forward to reading your self-published counterblast to RT's work if and when you get around to writing it. I trust it will at least improve on Jeff Lindsay's effort (whose exposure to critical biblical scholarship seems to be limited to Richard Eliott Friedman's popular 1987 bestseller, Who Wrote the Bible?).

I see that you have already forgotten TT's kind comments on my and RT's exchange, and the fact that you appreciated it.  It takes two to tango, Nevo.  An irenic exchange is based on mutual respect and attention to substance, rather than name-calling.