DiscussMormonism.com

Well, this is what I've been waiting for. Certainly, I'll be interested to read what more up-to-speed Book of Abraham observers have to say about this article, but in any case, I thought I'd offer up my impressions. Simply put: it sucks. Gee spends far too much time trying to discredit various witnesses, and to undermine knowledge concerning the "discovery" of the Joseph Smith papyri. In short, Gee has no real thesis beyond a very basic, 5-alarm "Must defend the Book of Abraham! Must defend the Book of Abraham!" Basically, reading this article is like watching an academic in free-fall.

Just as a small sampling of this embarrassment, check out this:

John Gee wrote:Since there is no official position, members of the church divide into four opinions about the translation of the Book of Abraham. The smallest group, comprising about 0.5 percent of members—according to my informal, admittedly unscientific surveys—thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the existing fragments that were in the Met. The next largest group thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus fragments that are no longer in existence. About one-third think that there is or was no connection between the Book of Abraham and any papyrus fragments. The largest group, more than half of members, do not care where the Book of Abraham came from.

Only .5 percent of members?!? Gee, why might this be, Prof. Gee? Aren't members informed about these very important and controversial apologetic issues?

Elsewhere, Gee relies upon this now very tired Mopologetic chestnut:

All approaches will be biased. Objectivity is a myth.

Right. Especially those approaches which have their basis in sound Egyptological disciplinary practices. Right?

In this next quote, Gee seems to (already) be mourning the mantel he has been forced(?) to shoulder within LDS apologetics:

If you do address the issue in print, you need to know that the two sides in the dispute will never leave you alone. It is a life sentence with no possibility of parole.

Yeeouch! I guess this means that Robert Ritner is in for a lifetime of harassment as well? Next, Gee seems to be channeling juliann:

If you decide you want to enter the debate, you ought to do some real homework. There is a large bibliography, and there are dozens of theories to master, not to mention a large body of evidence. Many mistakes would not have been made had Egyptologists only known the literature better.

And dig this howler:

If you want to do anything with the originals, you need to apply to the archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at least a full year in advance. You will need approvals from half a dozen committees that meet only once a month and for whom your request will be far down the list of agenda items. Requests to do anything before that time will garner an automatic denial.

Hmmm. And how many times have we heard LDS assert that historical archives are "wide open"? This seems to blow that out of the water! Gee whiz! A full year! And who are the "half a dozen committees"? Is one of them the SCMC?

This, in effect, is how Gee winds up the article:

Whatever goodwill Professor Baer had established among the Mormons by his tact has more than been destroyed by the recent cooperation of certain Egyptologists with anti-Mormons. Whatever short-term tactical gains for anti-Mormonism these Egyptologists may have made, the net result is a long-term loss for a serious Egyptological examination of the material. Those who wish to work with the originals will have to find ways to distance themselves from those efforts and the individuals involved in them, and from those who violate the church's copyrights on the material. It is worth following Professor Ritner's warning that those "for whom ridicule . . . [is] an occupation" and who are "not disposed to be particularly charitable" are "not relevant to the present discussion."

A couple of points here. Am I mistaken, or was this Ritner quote originally directed at LDS apologists? Furthermore, does this not seem like a kind of finger-wagging threat?

All in all, I found this piece by Gee to be an exercise in futility. He failed to deal with any of the more pertinent issues, and ultimately, the article functions primarily in the arena of rhetoric (rather than Egyptological scholarship). He is sitting here warning people that they had better back off, or else! The whole article seems like a long winded variation on that old childhood thread: "You better be nice, or I'm taking my ball home!"

You cite this quote:

If you decide you want to enter the debate, you ought to do some real homework. There is a large bibliography, and there are dozens of theories to master, not to mention a large body of evidence. Many mistakes would not have been made had Egyptologists only known the literature better.

I think the quote should go without saying, although it often doesn't.

John Gee wrote:The largest group, more than half of members, do not care where the Book of Abraham came from.

And that's precisely the group that the heirarchy loves the most.

Many mistakes would not have been made had Egyptologists only known the literature better.

So. . . did he give an example of a mistake made by Egyptologists? Indeed, can he give an example of a mistake made by Egyptologists? (I've never come across one yet.)

Hmmm. And how many times have we heard LDS assert that historical archives are "wide open"? This seems to blow that out of the water! Gee whiz! A full year!

I noticed that, too. From now on, I think he should keep better abreast of MA&D Mopologetics lest he embarrass his brethren-in-arms even further.

It is worth following Professor Ritner's warning that those "for whom ridicule . . . [is] an occupation" and who are "not disposed to be particularly charitable" are "not relevant to the present discussion."

Oh boy, talk about abysmally missing the point! Wait for it:

Am I mistaken, or was this Ritner quote originally directed at LDS apologists?

Yeah, Mister Scratch, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read that! I see you caught it, too. You know, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when someone finally points out to him who Ritner was really talking about.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:You cite this quote:

If you decide you want to enter the debate, you ought to do some real homework. There is a large bibliography, and there are dozens of theories to master, not to mention a large body of evidence. Many mistakes would not have been made had Egyptologists only known the literature better.

I think the quote should go without saying, although it often doesn't.

The trouble is, this is often used to try and discredit bonafide experts, such as Brent Metcalfe. (Hence my mention of juliann, who also used this argument when her interpretation of Bromley's cult/apostasy book was challenged.)

Dr. Shades wrote:

Hmmm. And how many times have we heard LDS assert that historical archives are "wide open"? This seems to blow that out of the water! Gee whiz! A full year!

I noticed that, too. From now on, I think he should keep better abreast of MA&D Mopologetics lest he embarrass his brethren-in-arms even further.

Yeah. One cannot help but wonder how and why the "rigorous" peer review process at FARMS Review let that one slip through the cracks. Lol...

It is worth following Professor Ritner's warning that those "for whom ridicule . . . [is] an occupation" and who are "not disposed to be particularly charitable" are "not relevant to the present discussion."

Oh boy, talk about abysmally missing the point! Wait for it:

Am I mistaken, or was this Ritner quote originally directed at LDS apologists?

Yeah, Mister Scratch, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read that! I see you caught it, too. You know, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when someone finally points out to him who Ritner was really talking about.

[/quote]

Perhaps I'm giving guilty of giving Gee the benefit of the doubt, but I figured he was quoting this in an ironic way.

Even so, I am left with the impression that Gee wrote this article out of frustration and anger. The comment that Book of Abraham apologetics is "a life sentence with no possibility of parole" is quite a haunting one, and I would imagine that it speaks a great deal to Gee's own image of himself and his chosen vocation.

Personally, I think this is the "Brent Metcalfe need not apply" piece.

Mister Scratch wrote:Even so, I am left with the impression that Gee wrote this article out of frustration and anger. The comment that Book of Abraham apologetics is "a life sentence with no possibility of parole" is quite a haunting one, and I would imagine that it speaks a great deal to Gee's own image of himself and his chosen vocation.

Although one can only speculate at this point, could it be Gee's way of subconsciously expressing regret at going down Nibley's road of "scholarship for sale?"

Trevor wrote:Personally, I think this is the "Brent Metcalfe need not apply" piece.

Which is ironic, considering that, Ph.D. in Egyptology notwithstanding, Brent Metcalfe has proven to have a far sounder grasp of the Book of Abraham than does John Gee himself!

Another one SCRATCHED!

Excellent review Mr. Scratch.

I have not yet read the piece, by am curious if he finished bearing his testimoany about how the holy ghost testified to him about the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham. Did he?

Dr. Shades wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:Even so, I am left with the impression that Gee wrote this article out of frustration and anger. The comment that Book of Abraham apologetics is "a life sentence with no possibility of parole" is quite a haunting one, and I would imagine that it speaks a great deal to Gee's own image of himself and his chosen vocation.

Although one can only speculate at this point, could it be Gee's way of subconsciously expressing regret at going down Nibley's road of "scholarship for sale?"

Yes, I think that's the case. I mean, what would *you* rather be doing---field work at Giza, or churning out works of Mopologetic crap that is easily torn to shreds? I mean, Hamblin and Peterson and Midgley also churn out crap, but they appear to engage in it with a kind of malignant zeal, at least. Poor Gee just seems beleaguered and miserable.

Trevor wrote:Personally, I think this is the "Brent Metcalfe need not apply" piece.

Which is ironic, considering that, Ph.D. in Egyptology notwithstanding, Brent Metcalfe has proven to have a far sounder grasp of the Book of Abraham than does John Gee himself!

Yes, it is the "Brent Metcalfe, Kevin Graham, and Robert Ritner, and Pretty Much Everyone Else Except Formally Appointed LDS Apologists Need Not Apply" piece.

Mister Scratch wrote:Yes, it is the "Brent Metcalfe, Kevin Graham, and Robert Ritner, and Pretty Much Everyone Else Except Formally Appointed LDS Apologists Need Not Apply" piece.

And perhaps especially Metcalfe, as he is in the process of writing a book about this mess.