Dear John Gee

[_John Larsen]

You guys are raising a straw man of epic proportions. The question is not “is John Gee the laughingstock of Egyptologists”. That is obviously not the case and no reasonable person is arguing for that.

The issues is that apologists tend to give Gee’s pronouncements on the Book of Abraham extra credence because of his credentials in Egyptology. Based on Chronos’ statements above, Gee shares this belief that scholarly knowledge of Egyptology is required to effectively understand and comment on both his writings and the Book of Abraham. However, there are 100s of people who have the level of scholarship that Gee demands. So rather than just deal with the issue directly by subjecting these theories to the scrutiny of knowledgeable scholars, he hides behind the bulwark of his degree. However, it is a false front. For Egyptologists do not consider the Book of Abraham to have anything to do with Egyptology.

Unfortunately, this is like a geographer claiming that only he, as an expert in geography, can fully comment on the geography of Middle Earth. Of course, special knowledge in geography provides no insight into Middle Earth since Middle Earth is imaginary and no real world knowledge translates to fictional realms. To extend the metaphor, our geographer refuses to engage those interested in Middle Earth, but likewise does not bring his ideas before the societies of geography, because he knows they wouldn’t be considered.

What Gee does is use his knowledge of Egyptology to bluster the academic appearance of the Book of Abraham. But this is pseudo science. If any of these ideas had merit, they must be vetted by those who understand Egyptology, which is definitely not the readership of FARMS. Readers of FARMS, not being trained in Egyptology, cannot spot the fallacies or misdirections that creep into many “scientific” writings that make them invalid. So Gee’s scholarship in Egyptology would only be meaningful to the world of apologia if he could direct the Smith translation back to the academic world, and have it accepted. This is the role of scientists. That scientists can convince laymen is almost a given. It is precisely because they have special knowledge that they can do this. Convincing their peers is the real game.

[_William Schryver]

After all, everyone here knows that John Gee is the laughing stock of modern Egyptology. Right? He gets invited to present at all those conferences simply to provide comic relief for the truly serious stuff produced by his "peers" in the field. After all, even Egyptologists need a good laugh now and then.

Why do you think Dr. Gee is inept? I think he's an incredibly smart man and his publications in his field support my view. He's a pre-eminent Egyptologist. He's no laughing stock, but you sure are.

Coming from a "crack whore trainee," that really hurts.

[_silentkid]

Coming from a "crack whore trainee," that really hurts.

So what? I sell the use of my genitals for a fix. You got a problem with that? Your mom doesn't.

[_karl61]

[_gramps]

Coming from a "crack whore trainee," that really hurts.

So what? I sell the use of my genitals for a fix. You got a problem with that? Your mom doesn't.

Oh. My. Heavens. You have been on a roll lately, but that takes the cake.

LMAO, after a nice strong Bavarian 7.something % beer.

Cheers, Will. Glad you got to take that bath finally.

[_William Schryver]

John Larsen:

The issues is that apologists tend to give Gee’s pronouncements on the Book of Abraham extra credence because of his credentials in Egyptology.

No, the issue is that Gee’s Book of Abraham arguments to date remain unassailed by the critical community of LDS apostates. Egyptologists have nothing to say on the matter. Well, except for Ritner’s unwarranted (and soon-to-be formally disproven) claim that the scroll of Horos was only ~300 cm long. Other than that, I am unaware of any Egyptologist who has addressed Gee’s apologetic arguments concerning the Book of Abraham.

But wait, Lanny Bell, just a couple years ago, formally acknowledged that the alleged “wing tip” in Facsimile 1 is actually a hand, as Joseph Smith had claimed. So I guess there is at least one Egyptologist who is taking some interest in the Joseph Smith Papyrii. Unfortunately for the critics, he has confirmed one long-disputed question in favor of Joseph Smith. Of course, you folks were probably blissfully unaware of all that boring academic stuff …

For Egyptologists do not consider the Book of Abraham to have anything to do with Egyptology.

What evidence would you cite to prove this point? I am unaware of any Egyptologist who has commented, one way or the other, on Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham. Have I missed something?

Unfortunately, this is like a geographer claiming that only he, as an expert in geography, can fully comment on the geography of Middle Earth.

Mildly cute. Typically condescending. But utterly meaningless in terms of the questions at hand. Gee has never suggested anything like what you attribute to him. You people have erected a strawman, that’s all.

What Gee does is use his knowledge of Egyptology to bluster the academic appearance of the Book of Abraham. But this is pseudo science.

Considering the essential incoherence of this statement, I’m forced to reply based on what I think you were trying to say. And that reply would consist of noting that Gee has argued, using techniques developed by a fellow Egyptologist, that the scroll of Horos was much longer than the extant fragments. Those arguments were being rejected by amateurs who appealed to the authority of Ritner in the process. Well, it turns out Ritner was wrong and Gee is right. So maybe people should learn a little something from the experience. But I doubt they will.

If any of these ideas had merit …

What ideas? What are you talking about? Do you even know?

[_karl61]

Will wrote:

"What evidence would you cite to prove this point? I am unaware of any Egyptologist who has commented, one way or the other, on Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham. Have I missed something?"

Who was the guy from the University of Chicago?

[_William Schryver]

Cheers, Will. Glad you got to take that bath finally.

Not as glad as my wife was. She's not into the "squeaky clean" feel by any means, but I'd probably taken things a bit far.

I hope things are going well back in the Fatherland.

[_William Schryver]

Will wrote:

"What evidence would you cite to prove this point? I am unaware of any Egyptologist who has commented, one way or the other, on Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham. Have I missed something?"

Who was the guy from the University of Chicago?

You mean Ritner?

The guy who was wrong when Gee was right?

The guy who is coming under increasingly vocal criticism from the rising generation of Egyptologists?

Is that the guy you're talking about?

Incidentally, Robert Ritner, to my knowledge, has never had a thing to say about the translation of the Book of Abraham.

[_karl61]

No - another guy who is no longer alive - Oriental Institute - University of Chicago.