Thoughts of John Gee on the Book of Abraham
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:19 am
Interesting interview with Gee and his experience at Yale. He does not mention Ritner.
https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-john-gee/
Note how he argues for the Book of Abraham
"The first is that the fragments that we currently have must be the papyri from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. A careful examination of the accounts left by nineteenth century eyewitnesses shows that cannot be the case.
The second is that the speculations of with. with. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery that were in Phelps’ possession are actually Joseph Smith’s and that they somehow give us some sort of key to understanding the translation process. The arguments put forward for this are usually circular and therefore logically fallacious.
The third is that one can assess the validity and authenticity of the Book of Abraham and understand its contents without reference to the ancient world of Abraham’s day. If all one studies and all one knows is nineteenth century history, then all one will be able to see is the nineteenth century; one will never be in a position to see anything ancient in the Book of Abraham.
So "missing scroll theory," the scribes did it" and ' he third is that "one can assess the validity and authenticity of the Book of Abraham and understand its contents with... reference to the ancient world of Abraham’s day"
https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-john-gee/
Note how he argues for the Book of Abraham
"The first is that the fragments that we currently have must be the papyri from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. A careful examination of the accounts left by nineteenth century eyewitnesses shows that cannot be the case.
The second is that the speculations of with. with. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery that were in Phelps’ possession are actually Joseph Smith’s and that they somehow give us some sort of key to understanding the translation process. The arguments put forward for this are usually circular and therefore logically fallacious.
The third is that one can assess the validity and authenticity of the Book of Abraham and understand its contents without reference to the ancient world of Abraham’s day. If all one studies and all one knows is nineteenth century history, then all one will be able to see is the nineteenth century; one will never be in a position to see anything ancient in the Book of Abraham.
So "missing scroll theory," the scribes did it" and ' he third is that "one can assess the validity and authenticity of the Book of Abraham and understand its contents with... reference to the ancient world of Abraham’s day"