John Gee's FAIR Presentation

[_Kishkumen]

Huh. Well, I don't think I have ever gainsaid Dr. Gee's Egyptological chops or his intelligence, both of which I have no doubt are superior. In my view, that just makes his Book of Abraham prestidigitation all the worse.

But, thanks for sharing, Bill!

[_SteelHead]

If Bro. Gee had actually observed a modicum of academic rigor and included the why and how in his paper then Sr. Hamblin nor the honorable DCP would need to defend him. As it is he is making unsubstantiated claims and we are supposed to believe him......... Because he is Dr. Gee?

Crappy academics is crappy academics. Calling a spade a spade.

[_Kishkumen]

If Bro. Gee had actually observed a modicum of academic rigor and included the why and how in his paper then Sr. Hamblin nor the honorable DCP would need to defend him. As it is he is making unsubstantiated claims and we are supposed to believe him......... Because he is Dr. Gee?

Crappy academics is crappy academics. Calling a spade a spade.

Well, this is the thing, I don't even know who is saying that Gee has no credibility in Egyptological circles. I think that it is rather the case that his Book of Abraham arguments either don't register on the "Egyptological radar," because they are of almost zero importance to the field, or, in a couple of cases, someone whose credentials are equal or superior to his own has disagreed with him about those arguments for reasons that are completely sound.

The only caveat I would offer here is that Gee has been working from the edges on legitimate Egyptological scholarship that, in his mind, has bearing on the Book of Abraham. So, I think that in his view he has made important discoveries that confirm to him the legitimacy of Joseph Smith's translation of an ancient Book of Abraham. That does not change any of the basic problems, in my opinion, but it is important to try to see things as Gee sees them.

What is true is that Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics, as represented in this FAIR presentation, for example, lack credibility, and Egyptology is largely irrelevant to the reasons why. Yeah, I know he offered his impertinent Egyptological quiz, and so forth. But, many of us have PhD training, and we understand how scholarly arguments are made well enough. Gee's FAIR presentation is, in my view, poor stuff. This adversely affects my respect for him, in spite of his other many fine qualities. Sorry, but it does. Does it mean that I impugn his intelligence or Egyptological acumen? No!

Does it raise red flags on issues of his credibility as apologist? Yes. In fact, I don't see that he has any credibility as an apologist. My understanding is that he has little credibility as a Book of Abraham apologist with numerous PhDs at BYU and elsewhere who have strong testimonies of the Gospel.

Dismissing opposition to Gee's atrocious apologetics as simply motivated by ignorance or animus against the Church may work with people who are either so biased or unaware that they will swallow Bill's red herrings whole, but plenty of good, learned, and even LDS-faithful people plain just don't buy Gee's strained apologetics on this issue. Distractor (Hamblin) is distracting.

Sigh.

Finally, I don't hate John Gee. I really like him as a person, as little as I have interacted with him. (I think I have had all of two brief conversations with him in all of my life.) We students of antiquity at BYU used to hero worship him as the heir to the Nibley legacy. A brilliant person with an eidetic memory who could trade quotations of Pindar in Greek with Dr. Nibley. He was a decent Sunday School teacher. A little dry, but definitely informative for those of us who were interested in the ancient world. The guy is brilliant. He is a good person. He is a sound scholar.

All of this just makes his Book of Abraham apologetics even more baffling. I don't want to feel this way about his Book of Abraham apologetics. I really don't. I would very much like to feel supportive of him. I love the Book of Abraham (although the racial stuff is disconcerting). It was my first favorite book of LDS scripture, and I still love it a great deal, although my appreciation for other scripture, particularly the Book of Mormon, has risen considerably over the years. The opening of the Book of Abraham still speaks powerfully to me after all of this time.

So Bill can go on about haters and ignoramuses who speak out of their butts because they are too stupid and blinded by their hate to appreciate Gee appropriately, but I am not buying it. If I were of a mind to do so, but I am not and I will never be, I could tell you of very learned and intelligent PhD-bearing friends, who have published scholarship, who do shake their heads when they consider aspects of Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics. Such people have been shaking their heads since the '90s.

So, shame on you, Bill Hamblin. You are being dishonest in how you represent disagreement with John Gee. It is not about stupidity and anti-Mormonism. Are some people impolitic and rough about Gee and his apologetics? I grant that is true. But look at what we are being treated to here! In terms of plausibility, much less probability, it simply doesn't pass muster in the eyes of decent people who have sufficient intelligence, training, and integrity to speak in legitimate, rational disagreement. Bill, your antics do you little credit.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Huh. Well, I don't think I have ever gainsaid Dr. Gee's Egyptological chops or his intelligence, both of which I have no doubt are superior. In my view, that just makes his Book of Abraham prestidigitation all the worse.

But, thanks for sharing, Bill!

Exactly. The only person who said anything about his reputation among Egyptologists is Robert Ritner, who is most definitely qualified to comment on this issue. Hamblin, on the other hand, is not.

Gee's "two ink" stuff was faked and that is relevant to Gee's character and academic integrity, not his knowledge as an Egyptologist.

[_Joe Geisner]

[Snip for space, not for content]
So, shame on you, Bill Hamblin. You are being dishonest in how you represent disagreement with John Gee. It is not about stupidity and anti-Mormonism. Are some people impolitic and rough about Gee and his apologetics? I grant that is true. But look at what we are being treated to here! In terms of plausibility, much less probability, it simply doesn't pass muster in the eyes of decent people who have sufficient intelligence, training, and integrity to speak in legitimate, rational disagreement. Bill, your antics do you little credit.

This is a wonderful comment Kish. You capture true class with this comment, thank you.

[_SteelHead]

I work and publish in CS realms. If I went to an ancillary conference and said so and so is wrong in their methodology but I won't show you why, you'll have to believe me on my say so, I would honestly expect to be heckled.

[_DrW]

Kish,

Thanks for reminding Brother Bill that there are a lot of highly qualified folks on this board, including many with postgraduate degrees and with peer reviewed publications and books to their credit. I happen to know that some with Ph.D. training and peer reviewed publications are doing more than shaking their head at the quality of John Gee's academics. It is more like a ROTFLMAO response.

You know, and I know, and I'm sure that John Gee knows (or should know) that what he is doing with his "Book of Abraham Egyptology" is not really academics, but apologetics, and very poor apologetics at that.

[_Fence Sitter]

I totally understand Bill's point. I mean it's not like one of the world's leading Egypotologist and Gee's own teacher has actually made the same criticism's of Gee Book of Abraham work now is it?

[_Mortal Man]

Bill Hamblin has responded to this thread on his blog without linking to it of course (http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/john-gee-egyptologist/

Dan has now chimed in but it doesn't sound like they're talking about this thread.

BILL AND DAN, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS THREAD?

[_Fence Sitter]

"And so doctors must be allowed to sit in judgement on their own cases because no one else is qualified; and if there is just nothing we can do about it, since their experience is far beyond the reach of the layman, placing them in fact "at the intellectual summit of the universe" by the ancient professional mystery of "autodeification in the order of knowing"".

"The Bishop is not interested in Webb's arguments and evidence, but in his status and rank - considerations that are supposed to bear no weight whatever with the honest searchers after truth - Nullus in Verba! What on earth have a man's name, degree, acedemic position and, of all things, opinions, to do with whether a thing is true or not?"

Nibley Jan 1968 Era pg 21-22