Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_Calculus Crusader]

Another biblical scholar's opinion of Gee:

I met him at an SBL/ASOR conference in 2007, just as I was leaving (mentally). Some background: biblical scholars do not in any way find any evidence that the Exodus story in the Pentateuch has any degree of historicity to it. It's legend, and unless you're a fundie from Dallas Theological Seminary or some little quasi-accredited Bible school, you're not even going to make the argument that the Pentateuch is history. The Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt. Scientific fact. So I go to Gee's presentation to show some respect, because BYU and CES were recruiting me for when I finished my doctorate, and his presentation he gave about Egyptological clues in the Pentateuch. For one, the presentation was scatty and not well put together. Then at the very end, he raised his voice, and with the feigned conviction you get from Mormons when they try to convince everyone in the room, including themselves, that by increasing their volume they also increase the truthiness of what they're saying, he says "HOW CAN THESE THINGS BE IF THERE WAS NO LITERAL EXODUS?!" Then there was a long pause as everyone in the room sat there with their mouths half open in disbelief, and he said "Are there any questions?" Nobody said a word (which is unusual for SBL/ASOR), and he just went and sat down with a smug look on his face, like he had some special knowledge and they didn't. It was an embarrassment to him, to BYU, and all of us in attendance.

If I had to describe my experience with Gee in one word? Douche. And I thought that even as a TBM who would one day most likely share an office wall with him.

Dogger Dog's claims re: scholars and the Exodus are false. His may be the majority view but it is false that only "fundies" at DTS and non-accredited schools argue for the Pentateuch's historicity. Moreover, it is not a "scientific fact" (or any other species of fact) that Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt. What is a fact is that Egyptians did not record their defeats and that Egyptians had Semitic slaves who may have been Hebrews.

Please let him know that I wrote that he is a dim bulb and a pretentious moron with "just enough of learning to misquote."

[_Yahoo Bot]

Interesting. I see no real evidence of the exodus except that which seems to be parallel.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Interesting. I see no real evidence of the exodus except that which seems to be parallel.

There is no "Moses was here" graffito but then again, there need not be to counter his claim. Dogger Dog also claimed that the translators of the KJV did not know Hebrew very well and relied on the Septuagint when "backed into a corner." He then lists the KJV's translation of Isaiah 26:19 as an example but the KJV translation of Isaiah 26:19 is manifestly not derived from the Septuagint. See here and here. It is, in fact, derived from the Masoretic text! See here or here.

(Dogger Dog apparently suffers from the delusion that the Masoretic text is necessarily more faithful than the Septuagint but agreements between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint against the Masoretic text say otherwise.)

[_Kevin Graham]

bump

[_MsJack]

Did Dan or John Gee ever comment publicly on this matter again?

By the way, in case you were wondering:

The fact is that Professor Gee went on to earn a doctorate from Yale in Egyptology after successfully petitioning for the removal of Professor Ritner, his appointed advisor, from his doctoral committee. (Aug 2 2006, 10:45 AM)- http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=16868

Perhaps you're unaware that Professor Gee (successfully) petitioned his department at Yale to have Professor Ritner replaced as chairman of his doctoral committee. Such requests are not commonly made. And they are not commonly granted. Do you think they're best buddies? (Jun 10 2006, 04:56 PM)
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... tner&st=20

Professor Ritner was once Professor Gee's dissertation chairman at Yale University, until he was removed from that position and replaced by another professor. There is a personal history here (of which I was aware as it played out, since Professor Gee had been a student of mine before he went off to graduate school at Berkeley and then Yale. (Mar 22 2006, 08:43 PM) - http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=14257

As I've said, various substantive responses are in the works. Whether the personal side of this will ever come out is unknown to me. I wish it would, but I don't think that's my decision to make. (Sep 29 2004, 01:26 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... topic=5150

Peterson provided an email from John Gee which included the following:

“I also will not comment on his removal from my dissertation committee other than to note that it was the department's decision to do so. There is much more to the story than what Professor Ritner has chosen to tell.” (Mar 23 2006, 07:47 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... ner&st=100

Of the five quotes from Dan provided by Kevin in the OP, only one survived the MADB => MDDB purge. The five quotes came from four different threads, so three of those threads were deleted.

[_Kevin Graham]

That's interesting Jack. After Ritner's comments, Dan maintained that what he had been saying all along was true, though he ceased commenting on it further. But if he and Gee were truly innocent, why go back to delete the incriminating evidence?

Ritner said he had email correspondences saved that would prove it was he who removed himself from Gee's dissertation committee. According to Ritner, Gee didn't produce the kind of scholarship Ritner demanded from his students.

What is also interesting is that when Ritner subsequently got lured into speaking on the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith papyri, he never once slammed Gee as his former student who he didn't feel deserved a PhD. No, that would have been unprofessional. Even when he was specifically responding to his former student's apologetics, he never mentioned anything about this.

Instead, it was Gee and Peterson who kept raising the point. They were trying to discredit Ritner's various refutations by (surprise!) poisoning the well. Dan did this by telling his audience (virtually every time Ritner's refutations were raised) over and over and over how Ritner was just an "anti-Mormon" whose responses to Gee should be rejected on that basis alone. I heard it so much through the years that I just assumed Dan was telling the truth. His method of smearing and its purpose should be obvious. The idea was to suggest that at Yale, Ritner's "anti-Mormonism" was so bad, that Yale threw Ritner off Gee's dissertation committee.

In the end Daniel Peterson and John Gee looked like a couple of fools. And if what Ritner says is true, then this makes John Gee a liar on the matter, and it makes Daniel Peterson a gullible accomplice. He allowed Gee to use him as his public defender. Speaking for him like a puppet. I know the feeling, because that's how Gee operates. He never addresses his critics. He gets others to do it for him.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I think it's interesting that we have years of documented obfuscation and out right smearing of "antis" and nothing has changed.

Mopologists and their enablers are impervious to ethics.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh this is a Mormon tradition that dates all the way back to the early days.

Smearing anyone who would dare speak the truth is just how they operate.

[_gramps]

Oh this is a Mormon tradition that dates all the way back to the early days.

Smearing anyone who would dare speak the truth is just how they operate.

I wholeheartedly agree with the above. They operate this way even down on the ward and branch level. For that matter, TBM family will even turn on family, just as easily. Quite sad, really.

That was a nice blast from the past.

I have always enjoyed Kevin's posts and hope they keep on coming.

[_Daniel Peterson]

LOL. I see that, while I've been wandering around looking at bison and elk and geysers and indulging my hobby interest in geology, Mr. Graham has continued to demonstrate, very eloquently, that my perception that he is far too prone to call those with whom he disagrees "liars" and "cowards," and to engage in rhetorical total war, is utterly baseless.

Nevertheless, I have a few quibbles.

After Ritner's comments, Dan maintained that what he had been saying all along was true, though he ceased commenting on it further. But if he and Gee were truly innocent, why go back to delete the incriminating evidence?

If the "incriminating evidence" has really been deleted, I had absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor, I expect, did Professor Gee, who doesn't participate on that board.

My understanding is that a bunch of people over at MDDB combed through old threads and deleted them, for reasons related to board housekeeping. I'm unaware of anything to suggest that they were trying to save my bacon with respect to the Ritner/Gee saga (nor -- another accusation that has been leveled here -- in order to affect the outcome of the federal criminal trial of Brian David Mitchell, in which I was a participant).

It's true that I will not further comment publicly on the Ritner/Gee relationship at Yale. I was sued, several years ago, by an evangelical anti-Mormon. I learned from that experience that anyone can be sued by anybody for anything (or, for that matter, for nothing). And I learned by direct personal experience that the costs to the person sued, in time and energy and money, can be enormous -- even if that person is innocent, even if the complaint has no merit and no basis in fact, and even if the suit is eventually tossed out by the judge "with prejudice." That legal assault cost me a very great deal, extending over more than two years.

If I can avoid it, I will not give Professor Ritner (or Mr. Graham) anything with which to formulate a law suit against me. I didn't find the experience amusing then, and I don't think I would find it amusing now.

What is also interesting is that when Ritner subsequently got lured into speaking on the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith papyri, he never once slammed Gee as his former student who he didn't feel deserved a PhD. No, that would have been unprofessional. Even when he was specifically responding to his former student's apologetics, he never mentioned anything about this.

Perhaps -- I realize that we're talking about the execrable John Gee here, but we still have to consider all the logical possibilities, however unlikely they may be -- because it might not have been true?

John Gee did, after all, receive a Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale University.

Moreover, while probably nobody here but myself is fully aware of Dr. Gee's extremely prolific record of publications and academic presentations, he seems to be doing rather well as an Egyptologist by any reasonable measure.

Instead, it was Gee and Peterson who kept raising the point. They were trying to discredit Ritner's various refutations by (surprise!) poisoning the well.

Actually, I was merely trying to dampen an earlier anti-John-Gee feeding frenzy here by pointing out that there might be other factors involved, and that the members of the chorus of ridicule against Dr. Gee might not be in a position to comment intelligently on the Ritner/Gee matter.

Pretty vicious, on my part.

Dan did this by telling his audience (virtually every time Ritner's refutations were raised) over and over and over how Ritner was just an "anti-Mormon" whose responses to Gee should be rejected on that basis alone.

I don't believe that I have ever said -- certainly I have never believed -- that Robert Ritner is just an anti-Mormon whose responses to Gee should be rejected on that basis alone.

The idea was to suggest that at Yale, Ritner's "anti-Mormonism" was so bad, that Yale threw Ritner off Gee's dissertation committee.

I don't believe that I've ever claimed that. I've never even thought it. That's not at all how I understand the Ritner/Gee situation.