John Gee & "Interpreter" Deliver Yet Another Book of Abraham Embarrassment

[Doctor Scratch]

Boy, the editors at "Mormon Interpreter" are really slumming it this week: check out the latest piece from John Gee. The opening paragraph has to be among the most bitterly hilarious setups that have ever been published on the blog:

It has been said that “the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it.”1 The same could be said of the Book of Abraham. One indication that critics do not bother to read the book is that, to date, none have bothered to comment on an apparent anachronism in the text. To spot it as an anachronism, one would have to take the Book of Abraham seriously as an ancient text, which most critics are unwilling to do. The purpose of this article is to discuss the apparent anachronism and why it is not one.

LOL!! So, this is a non-issue in the first place: critics don't see the Book of Abraham "as an ancient text," and Gee is unwilling to defend it as such here, and instead he moves on to defending an 'apparent anachronism' that isn't an anachronism after all? Do they really have so little to do these days that Gee is inventing things to provide Mopologetic explanations for? This really has to be a "lowest ebb"-type moment for "Interpreter." Maybe the powers that be are too busy with the latest film projects, or something like that?

In any case, the rest of the article is pretty lame, with Gee explaining how there might have been "chariots" during the same rough time period that Abraham was alive. If he provided solid evidence for Abraham himself having actually been around any of these "chariots," I didn't catch it, but as Gee points out, to do that "one would have to take the Book of Abraham seriously as an ancient text," and there is no reason to do that. This really has to rank right up there among the worst/stupidest articles that the Mopologists have ever produced on the Book of Abraham.

[Kishkumen]

There is only one anachronism in his view?

[Shulem]

At a glance, I see a lot of technical jargon in the article. I'm willing to bet that John Gee still doesn't know the name of the King in Facsimile No. 3.

What's the King's name, John?

Slam dunk! You dodo!!



The critics win!

[IHAQ]

It has been said that “the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it.” The same could be said of the Book of Abraham.

I wondered who had said that about the Book of Mormon, so I looked at the footnote. The reference is from 1957. Seriously? 1957? That’s the basis for this…ark steadier? And you’re right on the money Doctor Scratch, the issue isn’t if chariots existed at the time and place of Abraham, it’s if Abraham existed at the time of the chariots. But Gee isn’t going to grasp that particular nettle when he can invent straw men to battle.

[Gabriel]

Boy, the editors at "Mormon Interpreter" are really slumming it this week: check out the latest piece from John Gee. The opening paragraph has to be among the most bitterly hilarious setups that have ever been published on the blog:

It has been said that “the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it.”1 The same could be said of the Book of Abraham. One indication that critics do not bother to read the book is that, to date, none have bothered to comment on an apparent anachronism in the text. To spot it as an anachronism, one would have to take the Book of Abraham seriously as an ancient text, which most critics are unwilling to do. The purpose of this article is to discuss the apparent anachronism and why it is not one.

LOL!! So, this is a non-issue in the first place: critics don't see the Book of Abraham "as an ancient text," and Gee is unwilling to defend it as such here, and instead he moves on to defending an 'apparent anachronism' that isn't an anachronism after all? Do they really have so little to do these days that Gee is inventing things to provide Mopologetic explanations for? This really has to be a "lowest ebb"-type moment for "Interpreter." Maybe the powers that be are too busy with the latest film projects, or something like that?

Good Doctor, if I am reading the above correctly, you are basically saying that Professor Gee is faulting critics of the Book of Abraham for their failure to make a mistake. Is the converse true? Would Professor Gee be praising critics if they mistakenly identified chariots as an anachronism?

[Philo Sofee]

Oh Dr. Scratch......... you are, indeed, a breath of fresh air! This is one of many of those HOWLING LAUGHTER moments I just have to type which annoys so many folks on both sides of the aisle, but sincerely, thank you and HOWLING LAUGHTER

Poor John Gee... relegated to utterly insignificance status due to his inventing evidence which is no evidence. I shall show this on Sunday on my live show.

[Philo Sofee]

I love the old scholarly apologetic thinking of dazzling with innumerable footnotes (156 OF EM!) and discussion of Old Babylonian, Hurrian, Mesopotamian, the Hyksos, all these ancient views and etymologies, well.......I mean.........come on, this is an aptly demonstrated slam dunk (in apologetic psychology) for the Book of Abraham antiquity and the historically congruent theme of Abraham being real.... I love how they genuflect to scholarship that is entirely irrelevant to the only issue that actually matters. Along with the Smoot review of Dan Vogel's book, I would put this piece side by side as the perfect example of a Mormon apologetic deflection away from the only issue that has any meaning at all, did Joseph Smith actually get it right in his "revealed," and "inspired" biblical provenance of the Egyptian papyri in order to validly translated biblical oriented materials from the papyri? Of course not, so who west of Suez gives a flying flip about the Book of Abraham? Gee got that part right, no one wastes time reading it since it is entirely irrelevant. It's hilarious he cannot fathom why yet.
Actually, I don't give him enough credit here, we all know he is faking it, we all know he actually does know why he is forced to such triviality and he has to mightily struggle putting together something that at least looks good so the faithful can continue to imagine all is well in Zion. He knows his paycheck is more important to him than the Book of Abraham, which war he lost a loooooong time ago, along with all his fellow cohorts in apologetics.
I would sooooooo love to see Gee and Muhlestein team up and defend Joseph Smith's "Ladder of Jacob" or the proof from antiquity of the biblical "Fall of mankind" as illustrated by revelation to Joseph Smith in this papyri (The serpent tempting Eve while strutting around the Garden of Eden on his legs like a chicken even!) he purchased in the papyri in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, or the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, or the Journal Chronique D'Egypte! And lets see those hundreds of sources from the French, German, Hebrew, and Latin to boot boys! Really do a job with it all!

[Kishkumen]

Yeah, Philo. I marvel at all of this effort. Fascinating! And yet the Book of Abraham was written by Joseph Smith in the 1830s and 1840s.

Done.

I am now a better expert on the Book of Abraham than John Gee.

[Philo Sofee]

Yeah, Philo. I marvel at all of this effort. Fascinating! And yet the Book of Abraham was written by Joseph Smith in the 1830s and 1840s.

Done.

I am now a better expert on the Book of Abraham than John Gee.

Precisely. And how long and easy was that? It takes all of 1 minute to get to the bottom of it. I think Muhlestein is entirely misguided by saying this is so vastly complex that anyone saying it is simple is not to be trusted. Well, the complexity and difficulty is all caused by the ridiculous apologetic theories attempting to make sense of why the translation of Joseph Smith does not pan out, not in the actual issue that matters to everyone. The apologists continue to shoot themselves in the head over this.

[Shulem]

It has been said that “the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it.” The same could be said of the Book of Abraham.

And,

It has been said that “the Book of Abraham has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it.” The same could be said of the hieroglyphic text written in the registers of Facsimile No. 3.

The same could be said of the Book of Abraham. One indication that critics do not bother to read the book is that, to date, none have bothered to comment on an apparent anachronism in the text.

Can you also say:

The same could be said of the text in Facsimile No. 3. One indication that critics do not bother to read the text is that, to date, none have bothered to comment on an apparent anachronism in the text.

Full stop, John Gee! I have read the text and I have commented on anachronisms in that text and far worse. Joseph Smith's translations of the text in the hieroglyphic registers of Facsimile No. 3 is worse than any anachronism in the Book of Mormon. They are slam dunk mistakes. Can you explain them? What is the name of King Pharaoh? Just tell us the name, you conman!