Re: How Much Money Has Royal Skousen Made from Mopologetics?
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2022 2:24 am
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
According to my knowledge, both Doctor Scratch and Dean Robbers identify as male. They were the ones who engaged with my post in critical ways at some length. For these reasons, I addressed them with gratitude as gentlemen. I would do so again, unless they consider it rude for me to address them as men. I await their correction. If others of other genders had done the same, I would naturally have used different and appropriate language.Marcus wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:14 amI was about to add my thoughts. But, this sentence brought me up short. Maybe some do not realize the impact of such limiting language. But it does have an impact. An ice-cold, divisive impact.
At some point, one would think we could just address participants in --and even readers of-- a discussion without language that acknowledges only half of them.
Of course, I do not have any information on the amount of money spent on the project from 1988 (when Dr. Skousen became involved) through 2014. In any case, I think the effort to recover the original English language text, and to ascertain the history of the text (i.e., how the text has changed over time) was worthwhile.Tom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:06 amThe last solid figure I had was $329,289.65: viewtopic.php?p=18288#p18288
I don’t know if Dr. Skousen received additional funding in 2021 or this year. A specific line expense for Critical Text volume III appeared for the last time in the Interpreter Foundation’s expense report for the fourth quarter of 2020.
(emphasis added)In The Nature of the Original Language [of the Book of Mormon] (hereafter, NOL), Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack indicated that additional research into the language of the Book of Mormon might mean that some of the archaic words, phrases, and expressions identified at the beginning of NOL would eventually be discovered to have also occurred later in the 1700s. They were hampered by an inability to fully use the Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO) database. Now, however, much of that difficulty has been overcome, and Carmack has spent the last year or so reviewing the potentially archaic words, phrases, and expressions discussed in NOL. (During the past few months, Skousen has reviewed these potential archaisms as well.)
In what follows—a pre-print of what will appear in part 8 of volume 3 of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project—Skousen and Carmack report on what they have found. Some of the examples given in NOL did not die out as early as they had proposed. But a good many solid examples still hold up as almost certainly or probably archaic.
Good gravy. Out of curiosity, I went to see how much they cost over at BYU Studies. For the price of just Volume 4, I could get a complete Anchor Bible Dictionary.