John Gee, Historian

[_suniluni2]

No it doesn't, and no it isn't.

READ THE PDF and stop being an ignoramus. From the PDF, "However, later ancient Greek translations of this passage differ from the Septuagint. For example, Aquila rendered Isaiah 2:16b as “upon all views of pleasantness/desirable views” (epi pasas opseis tēs epithumias). Symmachus and the kaige-Theodotion text similarly render the phrase as “upon all desirable views” (kai epi pasas theas epithumētas).44 These alternative Greek translations of the Hebrew text of this phrase suggest that the translators were unsure of what the unique Hebrew term śĕkîyôt in verse 16b meant."

Obviously, they did render it differently in these cases. So much for your denials.

I'm not sure how you're not understanding that this is exactly what Sym was trying to explain to you. The mistake comes from translating what was translated from the hebrew, not from the original hebrew. This is why it's highly unlikely the Book of Mormon would do the same thing. I think you need to change your argument to "the Brass Plates were written in Greek". Perhaps Laban, being a rich man, had this done?

[_Manetho]

Do you know much about Gee's work? I thought Egyptian religion was sort of his specialty and so, in light of what you're saying about how that particular field has changed, we should expect a little bit more theoretical sophistication from John Gee. Is his Egyptological work in line with developments in that part of the field, or does he take an older school approach there as he does in blogging about the Bible and early Mormon history?

I've only seen a little of the work Gee has done outside the Book of Abraham mess. All I've read are a handful of papers that don't go into deep theoretical details. That may be a limitation of the length of the papers, or it may just be that deep theorizing is not Gee's strength.

None of the Gee papers that I've seen feel disastrously wrong the way his apologetics do, but it they do seem to give Egyptian religion a tinge that's more Mormon-ish than typical interpretations. For example, there's "The Book of the Dead as canon", in British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 15 (2010). It asks whether the Book of the Dead, the most famous Egyptian funerary text, served as some sort of scriptural canon for the Egyptians. In the 19th century, which was a truly benighted age for studies of Egyptian religion, scholars did regard the Book of the Dead as a rough equivalent of the Bible, but modern Egyptologists are well aware that Egyptian religion had no orthodoxy and no fixed sacred text. The BD was a loose collection of chapters intended primarily to be buried with the dead so that they could reach the afterlife; it wasn't a book that gave instructions for ritual, told a story, or gave advice to living people. Copies of the Book of the Dead vary widely in what chapters they include and omit and in what order.

Gee acknowledges those objections, though maybe not as extensively as he should, and then he points out things about the BD that do resemble the Christian concept of scripture. The Egyptian said or implied that certain portions of the BD were written by gods, and some portions may have been adapted from the instruction texts for temple rituals. Certain chapters of the BD did come in a somewhat fixed order. And when Egyptians became Christian, some of them were buried with copies of biblical texts, much as their ancestors were buried with traditional funerary texts, which implies that the Egyptians saw a certain similarity between the two. All fine and dandy. Gee concludes that the BD, and funerary texts in general, functioned as an open canon, where new material can be added, rather than a closed canon like the Bible. That seems like a valid perspective to take, if a bit unconventional. But then Gee says "Thus the Book of the Dead, to the Egyptians, fills the same category of divinely inspired scripture that the Christian canon does for the Christians," which is uncomfortably like saying that the two are equivalent.

So I think you were probably right about Gee's reputation in Egyptology: "an eccentric, but not a kook." He takes a somewhat unconventional perspective that can provide valid insights. I know other scholars have cited several of his works. But I sometimes feel that his work is a bit more skewed by his Mormon background than it should be. Other scholars of Egyptian religion, who've worked hard to shake off the Christian biases of the 19th century and the positivist biases of the early 20th, must sometimes get that feeling, too.

[_Tobin]

I'm not sure how you're not understanding that this is exactly what Sym was trying to explain to you. The mistake comes from translating what was translated from the hebrew, not from the original hebrew. This is why it's highly unlikely the Book of Mormon would do the same thing. I think you need to change your argument to "the Brass Plates were written in Greek". Perhaps Laban, being a rich man, had this done?

I understand what Symmachus is saying just fine. What you don't seem to be understanding is why I don't consider it a mistake. Symmachus is claiming it is a mistake because the translators didn't use a 14/13th century BC understanding of a cognate word. I'm stating it isn't a mistake because language (and cognate words in particular) evolve over time and the meaning can change.

[_Symmachus]

I understand what Symmachus is saying just fine. What you don't seem to be understanding is why I don't consider it a mistake. Symmachus is claiming it is a mistake because the translators didn't use a 14/13th century BC understanding of a cognate word. I'm stating it isn't a mistake because language (and cognate words in particular) evolve over time and the meaning can change.

Translation: "...[crickets chirping]...these go up to eleven."

[_Kishkumen]

Picking up the scriptures and searching them doesn't equal someone being "well read", spending a lot of time reading them.

Again though, that doesn't mean he didn't know them, and eventually really knew them, and it seems it came natural, not that he was always just reading the Bible. Thus, it would seem he had some sort of photographic memory.

At least Gee knows how to appear smart in his apologetics. Your crap is so obviously self-contradictory and stupid that it is a complete waste of time to interact with you. We can try to correct your obvious mistakes, but you just don't get it and never will.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt on their smarts, but in your case I just can't.

Gee said Smith was ignorant of the Bible. Smith himself was saying something quite different in 1832. Smith was. About himself. Read for Pete's sake. Moron.

[_Gadianton]

Hi Symmachus and Manetho,

I'm curious about your opinion on this essay by Gee:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... XXX6QO7V8w

If I understand you both, then Gee appears to agree with both of you that Egyptology is stuck in a early 20th century positivist stage.

This may mean that his simplistic view of the Bible contrasts with a deeply, deeply, deeply nuanced version of Egyptology?

On the one hand, the Bible in plain KJV English can be proof texted to serve Mormon theology with all the cultural shaping doing work in the background (as symmachus mentioned elsewhere) whereas Egyptology, this totally alien domain, needs an incredible amount of relativism to soften it up, and make ancient Egypt look like the Holladay area.

[_ldsfaqs]

Did he say "Temporal," I didn't see that?

He did not say he was innocent, he said he was "as innocent as I was fourteen years ago".

So the Sealing Ordinance is only for spiritual wifeism? What about the Sealing Ordinance today, what does that do?

So to summarize - you're saying that Joseph had more than one spiritual wife, but only one temporal wife, and that's why he wasn't practicing polygamy, and wasn't lying when he said he only had one wife. Is that what you're saying?

1. He did contradict their claim of adultery however, saying he didn't do so. So, that sounds like claiming innocence.

2. Sealings can be for time and/or Eternity.
The anti-mormons then themselves claiming Joseph was practicing the Eternity version. They then of course also accuse adultery, but they weren't saying that with the types of marriages they were.

Same things it did then..... Only today when it concerns man and woman we are sealed for both, time and eternity.
The other kind of sealings still exist for the dead, for certain living, for children to parents, etc.

3. Yep, that's what I'm saying. It's also what both Joseph and Emma said, she saying it to her death, that he did not practice polygamy.
She understood the distinction..... as well as the anti-mormons then, why don't you all?

[_Chap]

Hi Symmachus and Manetho,

I'm curious about your opinion on this essay by Gee:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... XXX6QO7V8w

If I understand you both, then Gee appears to agree with both of you that Egyptology is stuck in a early 20th century positivist stage.

This may mean that his simplistic view of the Bible contrasts with a deeply, deeply, deeply nuanced version of Egyptology?

On the one hand, the Bible in plain KJV English can be proof texted to serve Mormon theology with all the cultural shaping doing work in the background (as symmachus mentioned elsewhere) whereas Egyptology, this totally alien domain, needs an incredible amount of relativism to soften it up, and make ancient Egypt look like the Holladay area.

A fair evaluation of Gee ought to look at some of his Egyptological publications that are not related directly to Mormonism. Those with access might like to look at this one:

Gee, John (2004). " Overlooked Evidence for Sesostris III's Foreign Policy." Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 41: 23-31.

I am not an expert in this field, but reading this over I have the impression of a fairly normal kind of historical writing, involving a very detailed review of previously known evidence relating to the question, followed by suggestions that a couple of other items of evidence may add more to the picture already known. The forms of argument seem to be those normally used in such writing, and the fact that the article was published in a peer-reviewed Egyptological journal suggests that it was not considered obviously incompetent.

And that, for me, goes to the problem. This person has the capacity to do real (if not obviously earth-shatteringly novel) work in a well-established discipline that contributes to the sum of human knowledge. But instead (as in the article cited by Gadianton) he is wasting his time sparring with non-academic arguments about the Book of Abraham, and putting such reputation as he has in the scales to support a religion whose Egyptological claims are not likely to be accepted by anybody outside Mormonism, ever, and are even rejected by many people who still consider themselves Mormons.

It seems such a waste. We have seen the same kind of thing with Daniel Peterson. But it's their choice how they want to use their time and talents.

[_Kevin Graham]

..

[_ldsfaqs]

A fair evaluation of Gee ought to look at some of his Egyptological publications that are not related directly to Mormonism. Those with access might like to look at this one:

Gee, John (2004). " Overlooked Evidence for Sesostris III's Foreign Policy." Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 41: 23-31.

I am not an expert in this field, but reading this over I have the impression of a fairly normal kind of historical writing, involving a very detailed review of previously known evidence relating to the question, followed by suggestions that a couple of other items of evidence may add more to the picture already known. The forms of argument seem to be those normally used in such writing, and the fact that the article was published in a peer-reviewed Egyptological journal suggests that it was not considered obviously incompetent.

And that, for me, goes to the problem. This person has the capacity to do real (if not obviously earth-shatteringly novel) work in a well-established discipline that contributes to the sum of human knowledge. But instead (as in the article cited by Gadianton) he is wasting his time sparring with non-academic arguments about the Book of Abraham, and putting such reputation as he has in the scales to support a religion whose Egyptological claims are not likely to be accepted by anybody outside Mormonism, ever, and are even rejected by many people who still consider themselves Mormons.

It seems such a waste. We have seen the same kind of thing with Daniel Peterson. But it's their choice how they want to use their time and talents.

Can you tell me who primarily studied the Bible with their scholarly skills up until a couple 100 years ago, until it became accepted as also "History"?
It was Jew and Christian Scholar......

Was their scholarship somehow not necessary or valid which is what built up the validity of the Bible, until Atheists and otherwise decided to start getting into it, realizing that it had a lot of useful and factual information in it? Why do you think scholarship by professionals in the fields in question is ONLY VALID when Atheists do it? Professionals are professionals. They don't all of a sudden become stupid when they study LDS subjects, especially LDS ones don't. We are professional and interested in only the truth in ALL we do. We don't compromise our values for some "idea". Ironically, we don't have to, because the evidence backs up our ideas.

So, what makes you think that LDS scholars studying LDS issues from their perspectives also isn't important, especially when it's concerning a religion and subjects that claim the actual truth?

I mean, you quote an article of Gee that shows some things not previously known or realized, what you somehow forget is he and other LDS have done the same exact thing in validating many LDS related things. Take Egyptology and Gee..... Did you know that non-LDS scholars and then LDS scholars have found that several of Joseph's interpretations of the Facsimilee images are in fact HISTORICALLY VALID interpretations and usages, having been found in history, and not just found, but relate to Abraham, etc.? Thus, Joseph didn't just make crap up when explaining the Fascimilees, he was recieving revelation of a truth.

Guess who found those out? Some non-LDS and LDS scholars, including Gee..... but in relation to the non-LDS scholars, it was LDS that saw it related to LDS subjects, a.k.a. the Book of Abraham. After all, few non-LDS scholars have read the Book of Abraham as a reference in their scholarship, like they today do for the Bible, but they also didn't refer to the Bible for nearly 2000 years (save Christians and Jews).

Or, you have other scholars such as Margaret Barker who did her own new vast research that revealed many things lost or little known, and then LDS scholars read her work and see how many of those evidences related to validating several LDS subjects.

So, you may think Scholars who are LDS are "waisting" their gifts and talents, but clearly they aren't.
Just because you choose to be ignorant sticking your head in the sand to not see how much evidences from all the Sciences that exist a 1000 fold that validate LDS claims isn't our problem.

Years ago, after being anti-mormon and anti-religion, I spent hours and hours, over several months in the library studying religion, and then the Church from all sides. I was amazed how ignorant I was of some of the issues, but was also amazed at 'how much' evidences there were for the Restoration.... from all the sciences and scholarship fields. It was so much, that I could say without a doubt that anyone that truly were humble and wanting to know the truth, and put the effort into it, wisely so also, that they could know the truth of the Church.

That was 20 years ago.... Since then, the evidences have only Tripled.... and gotten even much stronger. There is no excuse anymore, except laziness, arrogance, and sin.