Physics Guy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:06 pm
That's probably true and maybe it does point to the better way for Egyptology to react to John Gee. But does an academic discipline only care about members of the general public who care enough to read widely?
I would assume not, but perhaps a better way of reaching the public is to write for the public on Egyptology more broadly defined and not to pick apart the Egyptian translations of fellow scholars in a backwater journal. Unless your readers read Egyptian too, what are they going to get from Ritner saying Nibley translated something incorrectly? Will they really benefit from that? All they will know is that scholar A says he is better at translating Egyptian than scholar B. Which of the readers of
Dialogue learned better Egyptian because Ritner put the smackdown in Nibley's translations?
Physics Guy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:06 pm
On the other hand, though, there may be a lot of people who are sadly ignorant about things that they could understand better, and who may not be heroic truth seekers but who would be willing to pay at least a bit of attention in order to learn, if only something that made any real sense would reach them in their language. I can see a sort of duty to try to reach those kind of people. I'm not sure I can completely wash my hands of everyone except those who are willing to read many books.
Many books? How about a couple of books, or a bunch of articles in
Archaeology magazine? There has to be a nice middle ground between correcting Nibley's Egyptian in front of Mormons because he and Gee pissed you off and informing the public. I really don't think many people benefited from Ritner making a point of correcting Nibley and Gee, other than seeing that a non-Mormon scholar disagrees with a Mormon scholar about the language of the papyri.
Physics Guy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Jenkins did seem to me to be a stone thrower who only lived in a house of somewhat thicker glass. But I didn't think I noticed much sectarian edge to his statements in his debate with Hamblin. And I don't think we can blame people for arguing topics on which they themselves hold strong views.
That's really not all Jenkins is doing. He is a Christian historian working at a sectarian institution who is going online to call the Book of Mormon pseudo-history. That's not a neutral activity. And, yes, he compared his more reliable Christian historical views to the fact-free Book of Mormon story. Now, it is true that Jesus existed whereas Nephi is a construct that Joseph Smith invented, but Jesus is not the Eternal God from before the creation of the world or the resurrected Lord and Savior who will come back to judge the living and the dead because of history. Christianity is not "true" because Jesus existed, and Jenkins really ought not passively to bootstrap this in even an indirect way.
Physics Guy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:06 pm
What is the difference from a historian's viewpoint between attributing one-time miracles to legendary figures, and inventing entire cultures wholesale? That seems to me to be the difference between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. It may be a difference of degree rather than of kind but it's a big degree difference, and I think it might be enough of a difference to make the difference between whether a historian needs to do something to teach against a popular pseudo-history or whether he or she can just shrug and let believers believe.
I think the point is arguable. Is it more damaging to make up a history or to falsify an existing history? Maybe Mountain Meadows Massacre really is much worse than the Crusades and the Holocaust. Ahem.
What I am asking for is consistency, and preferably I would like people who do not have an ax to grind to take up these issues. I won't get that. People generally come to a topic because of a complex set of motivations. I have complex motivations for bringing to our collective attention the fact that Professors Ritner and Jenkins are human beings with human flaws and complex motivations.
I am ready to drop the Book of Mormon as history. I already have, and I did it a long time ago. Is Professor Jenkins ready to drop the resurrection as history? Or can he prove that Jesus Christ floated up to heaven in a cloud of glory with angels gathered around him, or some such? Maybe he already has dropped that as a historical belief. Perhaps he, co-director of Baylor's Program on Historical Studies of Religion in the Institute for Studies of Religion, shares that with all of his students at Baylor. Or maybe not.
Physics Guy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Even if I suspect that Mormon sins against history are graver than Christian ones, I'm appalled if other denominational schools are getting away with things for which BYU draws strong fire. I'm not American but from what I've seen I can imagine there may well be something to the claim that Protestantism in America has a white-like privileged status. I haven't heard the acronym WASP for a while but it was a thing once.
My spouse and I have dealt with assholes and friends behaving like assholes our whole lives. Mormon jokes. My spouse being asked during an interview for a clerkship with a FEDERAL JUDGE whether her dad drove a wagon and had a long beard. Believe me, there is plenty of narrow-minded bigotry to go around, and it isn't just un-woke Mormons who follow Mormon apostles who have a problem. Mormons in American culture are only provisionally white and strongly denigrated for their religious views. Yes, Protestantism is the gold standard for mainstream religious belief.
Let me provide another example. I absolutely adore Ron Huggins. He is a fantastic guy. He is also a brilliant and exacting scholar. At the same time, he is deeply prejudiced against Mormonism because he fervently believes that Joseph Smith was influenced by demons.
DEMONS.
I recall how similar beliefs caused mobs of wrathful Christians to desecrate and tear to bits the great temples and statues of the gods of Greco-Roman antiquity. Oh, they said, these things are full of demons so we have to get rid of them. Today you will find mobs in parts of the world that still do this kind of thing. They will kill a person or a family because DEMONS.
Now, I don't think Prof. Huggins would do anything of the sort, but let's not kid ourselves about his obvious rationality or pure motives when he attacks Mormon apologetics. He probably thinks that Daniel Peterson is being influenced by the very same demons that plagued Joseph Smith.
And, on occasion, I get pretty annoyed with Prof. Huggins' motivations for going after this or that in his research. One of his latest things is to demonstrate that the Enneagram has nothing to do with historical Christianity so that he can protect the flock of believers from occult influences. Sorry, but that just rubs me the wrong way. Sure, he is entitled to do it, but my tolerance for this kind of purity test for right belief is admittedly kind of thin. I admit that I have this weakness, and it does impact my reaction to this whole set of issues.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow