John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_dartagnan]

I've not sought to turn the Ritner/Gee tiff into anything in order to support any Mormon position.

Your documented history of well poisoning on this matter, strongly suggests otherwise.

I've cautioned critics not to make more of Ritner's history with John Gee at Yale than they should.

Was it the critics or the apologists who brought this up to begin with? The first I ever heard of this matter was in LDS circles, starting with you. I heard nothing from critics over the years. Your side claims Ritner was thrown off the committee because Gee complained about some kind of mysterious impropriety – or at least that is what you left the readers to believe. Only recently have critics used this incident against Gee, and that is because Ritner finally made a statement refuting it, which in turn, proves more embarrassing to Gee than it ever could Ritner.

Now you want to pretend all you were doing was “cautioning” the critics in their usage of the incident?

I was aware of this case as it transpired. I have never said all that I know -- this will drive poor Beastie mad, but there you have it -- and I don't know everything. But I know enough to understand that Dr. Ritner's departure from Dr. Gee's committee cannot -- should not, anyway -- simplistically be used to condemn Dr. Gee.

But it is perfectly OK to condemn Ritner? Go ahead and pretend you never implied that it did. Do I need to pull out your three year history of raising this issue? All a critic would haveto do is simply point out that Ritner was Gee’s professor, and he disagrees. He disagreed with him publicly, in print. And how do you respond? By telling the audience that Ritner was thrown off Gee’s doctoral committee, strongly implying that Ritner’s subsequent criticisms of Gee must be considered nothing more than academic vengeance of some kind.

It would be instructive for the whole story to come out some day.

Well, I beg you to keep flapping your chops on this matter, because Ritner indicated to me that if this continued, he would consider providing the relevant email exchanges between him, Gee and all those who were involved, which would apparently prove it was Ritner who walked off the committee, and that it was not Gee who got him tossed, as you maintained over a three year period.

I don't know, however, that it ever will. Especially now that the threat of litigation has been raised.

The litigation threat was first raised by John Gee, against anyone who kept calling him dishonest.

I was sued by an evangelical anti-Mormon a few years back for $4.5 million; the case was utterly without merit and was ultimately dismissed "with prejudice," but it still preoccupied me for two years -- two years that, if I hadn't needed to defend myself against a frivolous but malicious law suit, might even have enabled me to approach the first gentle foothills surrounding the towering academic Olympus on which the illustrious Guy Sajer sits enthroned in glory.

Well, apparently it wasn’t an experience unpleasant enough to teach you to keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about. But then, I can understand your need to defend all things Gee, and that you just couldn’t refrain from the temptation.

[_Paul Osborne]

Hi There Daniel Peterson,
Have you or John Gee yet had any luck at trying to find the ‘Missing Papyrus that contained the Book of Abraham’ on it??? Just Wandering!

John Gee wouldn’t recognize the Book of Abraham papyrus if it jumped off the table and hit him in the head. Even, after the many testimonies which have been given from the early brethren of the Church, Gee’s mind is in the dark, as was Nibleys. They are the blind leading the blind.

John Gee cannot tell us the name of the king found in Facsimile No. 3. He doesn’t have that kind of skill and can't read Egyptian like a prophet does. Joseph Smith could give us the name of the king because his Egyptology is based in revelatory representationalism and not in conventional means like the world does things. John Gee is worldly – Joseph Smith was spiritual. Gee’s Egyptology is patterned after the world, but the prophet’s was after things spiritual.

Can John Gee demonstrate which characters in Facsimile No. 3 spell out the name “Shulem”? I here say that Gee doesn’t have the knowledge to do that. His credentials for interpreting important parts of Joseph Smith’s work are pointless. He should just sit down and let others take on this work. John Gee doesn’t know a thing about how Joseph Smith translated or why he turned a god into a slave. In this regard I give him an F grade. He flunked.

I dare say that I know far more about the spiritual nature of Joseph Smith’s translations than Gee does. My understanding surpasses his and he is like a kindergarten kid while I am a professor. So, I wish Gee would sit down and quit crying like a baby over the writings of the critics. That includes puffed up Dan Peterson who thinks he is so learned and wise. If someone would just poke a pin in Dan and deflate him, that would do us all some good. The man's head is so big it is going to pop.

With that said, I’ve had shingles 5 times and if I get it again by arguing on these damn messages boards, I will be really pissed off. Now, I should go take tranquilizer.

Paul O

[_Mister Scratch]

Was it the critics or the apologists who brought this up to begin with? The first I ever heard of this matter was in LDS circles, starting with you. I heard nothing from critics over the years. Your side claims Ritner was thrown off the committee because Gee complained about some kind of mysterious impropriety – or at least that is what you left the readers to believe. Only recently have critics used this incident against Gee, and that is because Ritner finally made a statement refuting it, which in turn, proves more embarrassing to Gee than it ever could Ritner.

Now you want to pretend all you were doing was “cautioning” the critics in their usage of the incident?

And yet, despite all of this, DCP continues to try and claim that he does not engage in smear tactics and gossipmongering.

I still have a question I'd like to see answered by the Good Professor: Did his apologetic publications count towards tenure?

[_rcrocket]

And yet, despite all of this, DCP continues to try and claim that he does not engage in smear tactics and gossipmongering.

I still have a question I'd like to see answered by the Good Professor: Did his apologetic publications count towards tenure?

I wonder how many of your posts directed to defenders of the faith include the words "smear tactics" or close variations thereof. I think lots and lots and lots. Run the word "smear" in "Search" above and see the fruits of your thought.

Look, if you are going to defame Peterson and attempt to injure his reputation, at least you could show some courage and unmask yourself. You and your buds are cowards.

Can't we all just get along, and follow New Testament principles of brotherly love? Talk nice to each other and have reasoned discussion, instead of continual insults?

[_Enuma Elish]

Thanks, Trevor for the kindly words.

The problematic nature of the claims raised in Kevin’s most recent attack should be obvious to any critical thinker.

If my position on the sexuality of the biblical God was simply “crummy Mopologist work,” abandoning all reason in an effort to prove the validity of LDS theology, I suspect that my excommunicated academic mentor who is himself familiar with both LDS theology and biblical scholarship would have a few concerns.

To provide further clarification of my position, last year I posted a thread on Psalm 47, analyzing the text as a biblical prayer directed to the divine council of gods (this is another paper that I will eventually publish for a non-LDS academic audience). Though the ideas produced much positive feedback, Kevin (as usual) was of course quick to respond with misplaced criticisms. After I dealt with Kevin’s concerns, others including Benjamin McGuire attempted to answer Kevin’s objections to my theory.

Interestingly, one of Kevin’s criticisms of my interpretation of Psalm 47 included the following statement:

“A council in heaven that is worshipped by humans isn't something I think we need to be pushing for.”

In response to Kevin’s objection to my idea that the notion of a prayer directed to the divine council of deities is not something that Latter-day Saints should “be pushing for,” I responded on the FAIR/MAAD Board:

I’m really not a traditional apologist. I'm willing to push it as far as it goes. I accept what the Bible says, even when it doesn’t completely square with my own beliefs.

As I’ve said before, I don’t believe that biblical theology entirely squares with Latter-day Saint theology, nor would I expect it to.

Interesting that at that time, Kevin criticized my approach for not entirely squaring with LDS views, whereas now he presents me as simply a mopologist driven entirely by my desire to prove the validity of LDS theology.

I believe that this exchange from April of 2006 illustrates how problematic both Kevin and Scratch’s suggestion proves when stating that my research and posts amount to mere “crummy Mopologetic work.”

It also illustrates how badly Kevin has skewed the representation of our exchanges and my posts when he states:

Bokovoy's passion isn't Hebrew. His passon is about apologetics - proving the Church true through a knowledge of Hebrew. This is evidence in the themes he talks about. Each and every one is essentially apologetic in nature.

In his efforts, Kevin has also misrepresented my alleged criticisms of Evangelical scholarship through the following statement:

Bokovoy has attacked Evangelical scholarship as being little more than worthless crap. He says it is too theologically driven, which makes him an utter hypocrite. Yet, I know Evangelical scholars who don't start their academic careers with theological/apologetic papers/presentations.

As a theologian myself, I have never criticized Evangelical and/or any other scholarship as “worthless crap” for being too theologically driven.

My posted comments to Kevin on this topic were:

There really is a big difference between a true biblical scholar and an Evangelic/Catholic Biblicist--even if you are not aware of it. The FAIR board regularly receives posts from Evangelic and Catholic participants who know a lot about the Bible.

Some of these posters, together with their preferred sources, even possess some skills in Hebrew and Greek. Their approach to the Bible, however, is much different than the one taken by true biblical scholars who attempt to approach the text objectively.

[_Mister Scratch]

Gee . . . is a truly nasty piece of work, full of hatred and bent on smearing

A message board post can't possibly get any richer than the one above.

the fact that Ritner walked off Gee's doctoral committee.

Is that a fact.

I think everyone has to read for themselves but he doesn't appear too kind in his review; the review gives Mister Scratch's thoughts some support.

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=296
I also just read another review where someone wrote in very simple plain language the issues he had with a book written by Hugh Nibley. I hope Mister Scratch can provide those links to show how it is possible to disagree, explain your disagreements, but be respectful.

Interestingly, in the article you've linked to, Gee makes it clear that one's professional status should have little bearing on weighing the merits of arguments.

He may have said that later, but early on he very clearly does think that professional status and training are important:

Thus, granted Ferguson's "lifelong fascination with these fields [history, culture, and archaeology of Mesoamerica], he did not pursue a degree in any of these subjects" (p. 2). Did he even take any courses, and if so would that coursework have been worth anything today? This question is relevant because Ferguson's approach to archaeology was both naïve and dated.

Gee's article is a smear piece, plain and simple. He goes to great lengths to insult and disparage both Larsen and Ferguson. Here are a few choice tidbits:

Thus, with the deliberate inclusion of this material and the deliberate suppression of the fuller picture of Ferguson, Larson demonstrates an interest in fashioning propaganda.

"Tortuous" is putting it mildly—the book is a tedious read.

Ferguson's enthusiastic amateur naïveté plagues his arguments,

Yeeouch! Dare I say that Gee's unrestrained vitriol and intellectual dishonesty plagues his arguments?? Here is perhaps the best gem:

We can all laugh ourselves silly (or weep) at the flawed arguments that Larson tries to muster.

Yep. He sounds like a true professional to me. Honestly, does this stuff really belong in a serious academic article?

[_Mister Scratch]

I believe that this exchange from April of 2006 illustrates how problematic both Kevin and Scratch’s suggestion proves when stating that my research and posts amount to mere “crummy Mopologetic work.”

Enuma, where did I ever say such a thing/make such a suggestion?

Bokovoy has attacked Evangelical scholarship as being little more than worthless crap. He says it is too theologically driven, which makes him an utter hypocrite. Yet, I know Evangelical scholars who don't start their academic careers with theological/apologetic papers/presentations.

As a theologian myself, I have never criticized Evangelical and/or any other scholarship as “worthless crap” for being too theologically driven.

Did you criticize it as "worthless crap" for some other reason?

There really is a big difference between a true biblical scholar and an Evangelic/Catholic Biblicist--even if you are not aware of it. The FAIR board regularly receives posts from Evangelic and Catholic participants who know a lot about the Bible.

Some of these posters, together with their preferred sources, even possess some skills in Hebrew and Greek. Their approach to the Bible, however, is much different than the one taken by true biblical scholars who attempt to approach the text objectively.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you not implying that these "Evangelic/Catholic Biblicist[s]" are unobjective, and therefore "theologically driven"? If not, then why should the work of these people be dismissed?

[_Yong Xi]

I find it interesting that Gee labels Ferguson a hack, a naïve amateur archaelogist ill-equipped to engage in Book of Mormon archaelogy discovery. He may have been all of that. However, what does that say about the professional LDS archaelogists who have uncovered about as much as Ferguson?

It sounds like being an amateur archaelogist is perfectly adequate.

[_dartagnan]

Bokovoy says, “I have never criticized Evangelical and/or any other scholarship as “worthless crap” for being too theologically driven.”

Oh really now?

My posted comments to Kevin on this topic were:

Why not provide a link? Afraid the audience might notice some of your other comments that pretty much reinforce my assertion, and prove I am not “misrepresenting” what you have said?

This issue was so important to you that you decided to divert off of the original thread and start an entirely different discussion about this. Allow me to provide what you simply haven't. In your first two opening posts you made the following assertions (emphasis mine):

Are All Biblical Scholars Created Equal?

The answer to this question is an obvious, NO!

Recent exchanges here on the FAIR board have prompted the need for a new thread. Not all biblical scholars are created equal—a fact that if I had known a decade or so ago, would have saved me a lot of money.

Now I own most of the Word Biblical Commentary series and in my opinion, the only thing that these books are really good for, is their bibliographies at the beginning of each section.

To illustrate a few of the reasons that not all biblical scholars are created equal—a fact that I think would help participants and readers of the FAIR board make their way through technical arguments and formulate their own opinions—I have posted the following link to an essay by Dr. Marc Z. Brettler featured on the Society for Biblical Literature website:

(David then posts a long excerpt from an article by Brettler, ending the first post)

Many conservative Christians who do not want to confront the fact that today’s archeological and textual evidence negates their understanding of the Bible, will often pursue graduate work in the history of interpretation and then, return to their respective traditions presenting themselves as biblical experts.

Does anyone see the irony in that last statement? It fits Bokovoy and Gee perfectly, and that is precisely why I chose to apply it to them. The difference is, I am referring to specific persons and addressing specific claims they have made, whereas Bokovoy is taking it upon himself as a pre-doctorate student, to make a sweeping stereotype of an entire group of scholars.

Dale shared an axiom that David simply wouldn’t accept:

“LDS Bible scholars will argue for the viewpoint they hold, and Catholics will do the same for the positions that favor them. The same with Evangelicals, and atheists.”

This statement is just common sense, but David responds with, “This is simply not true.”

It isn’t? David thinks LDS scholars don’t argue for the viewpoints they already hold? Then please David, demonstrate for us one single argument you have presented that flat out contradicts your theology.

A few days later I decided to chime in. Here is my post:

David B: Many conservative Christians who do not want to confront the fact that today’s archeological and textual evidence negates their understanding of the Bible, will often pursue graduate work in the history of interpretation and then, return to their respective traditions presenting themselves as biblical experts.This trend, however, is only part of the problem that Brettler addresses.

Kevin: But Brettler says nothing about conservative scholars in the article you linked. Sure, some American schools could do a better job than they are, but I see no intended dichotomy between Liberal vs. Conservative in Brettler's article. American schools are not strictly conservative.

David B: The other issue is that many American programs do not place emphasis upon mastering the intricacies of biblical Hebrew and related Semitic languages.

Kevin: But many do. And within those programs there are scholars who received an "equal" education, yet disagree on various issues. How is this explained if all one needs is a specific level of Hebrew?

Dale: LDS Bible scholars will argue for the viewpoint they hold, and Catholics will do the same for the positions that favor them. The same with Evangelicals, and atheists.

David B: This is simply not true.

Kevin: Of course it is. Are you actually saying that scholars, no matter what their religious background, do not argue for the viewpoints they hold? They're arguing for viewpoints they don't hold?

David B: Biblical scholarship represents a highly trained—intensive discipline that requires the mastery of several ancient languages and other highly developed skills. Just because the Bible is a religious text doesn’t mean that everyone’s opinion is equally valid.

Kevin: You need to understand that the majority of theological points argued from the sacred texts are a result of inductive reasoning. In other words, these are arguments in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. You seem to suggest these arguments are deductive, meaning they provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. Conservatives are generally those who are guilty of confusing the two by pretending their conclusions have been deduced from facts.

But scholars generally do not speak in absolute terms unless it is the overwhelming consensus that it is so. Even Brettler demonstrates this tendency in his work, by refusing to come right out and provide his audience with a discernable list of smart scholars and dumb scholars.

Your comments remind me of Tradd Button, who seems to believe truth about his preferred religion could be guaranteed by relying on the most prestigious scholars in the field- even those who are not adherents of his faith. I have demonstrated to him on numerous occasions how his preferred scholars have been proved wrong by those whom he would consider amatuers (even those with no background knowledge of the relevant language). Biblical scholarship is different of course, but the same principle holds true. Liberal scholars are generally no more objective than conservatives. My observation is that Liberal scholars, perhaps by definition, like to stir the pot, rock the boat, create change, sway from the norm, et cetera. No view can be settled enough for a true Liberal, because there is always room for a more profound understanding - especially if it flies in the face of consensus. By contrast, Conservative scholars generally hold to the traditional views. They like to keep things the way they are. The differences are not too different from the Liberal and Conservative agendas in politics.

David B: Part of the objective of this thread is to discuss the fact that there really is a difference between a true Bible scholar and an Evangelical/Catholic Biblicist.

Kevin: This is cheap polemic which I believe your primary source, Marc Brettler, would disagree with. I would like for you to get a statement from him that dismisses Evangelical and Catholic scholarship as pseudo-scholarship. His published works don't even come close to making such a dogmatic assertion.

David B: A true Bible scholar approaches the text objectively, even when it contradicts his or her personal beliefs.

Kevin: You might be shocked to know this, but no scholar is truly objective. This is a truism that has been reasserted numerous times on this forum by scholars like Daniel Peterson. There are plenty of Evangelical scholars who approach the text, while acknowledging that their understanding of it conflicts with their theology. I can think of at least two worthy scholars who admitted this to me in email. Kenneth Mathews, who wrote the Genesis WBC, and Carlton Winbery who is a world class expert in Greek, both conceded the point that God may actually have an anthropomorphic form. This, in spite of their Evangelical leanings. Brettler is hardly unique because he believes the text says something that conflicts with his Jewish orthodoxy.

David B: I think we should, however, work through the assessments of trained professionals with respect and an open, albeit critical mind.

Kevin: But this seems to be at odds with your advice. First you offer a psychoanalytical statement on how an entire field of scholarship, that engulfs tens of thousands of experts, and centuries of tradition, should be casually dismissed because they are not objective. You arbitrarily toss Evangelical scholarship into the bin of worthlessness; such advice you infer from an article that makes no such recommendation in the first place.

Dale: I think we can agree Bible scholars are not equal.

Kevin: I don't. All humans are equal. But I understand the point he is making. The wording was poorly chosen, however. It seems he is basically asserting that some scholars know more Hebrew than others. Well, obviously. This is supposed to be news to anyone? This fact doesn't present a problem for anyone or anything. Rather, the problem is that David is trying to educate us as to which schools of scholarship should be trusted and which ones should be ignored. David is not qualified to pass this judgment, and even if Brettler was, he doesn't.

I have already demonstrated on the original thread that the mentors of David's preferred scholar, disagree with him on the tselem issue, proving that a plethora of viewpoints has nothing to do with knowledge of Hebrew, or liberal vs. conservative agendas, or objectivity vs. subjectivity. It is simply a matter of interpretation that is drawn from, in most cases, inductive reasoning. Arguments for probability, not guaranteed truth. That is how scholars operate, including Brettler.

So it is pointless to pretend that truth can be better obtained by focusing on one particular school of thought. Liberals disagree amongst themselves just as much as they disagree with conservatives. I think this stubborn fact kinda throws the purpose of this thread into a tail spin.

Care to provide the link so we can read how this thread ended?

[_Enuma Elish]

Enuma, where did I ever say such a thing/make such a suggestion?

Scratch: "I'm not sure why Prof. P. seems to think that a mere listing of the universities Gee and Bokovoy attended somehow salvages their crummy Mopologetic work."

Did you criticize it as "worthless crap" for some other reason?

No.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you not implying that these "Evangelic/Catholic Biblicist[s]" are unobjective, and therefore "theologically driven"? If not, then why should the work of these people be dismissed?

I’m not really interested in participating in a long exchange on this board, nor do I have the time. I’m satisfied that objective thinkers will now recognize the problematic nature of Kevin’s statements regarding my work. That’s really all I was interested in establishing.

Many Evangelical/Catholic and even Jewish scholars approach their work on the Bible with a critical perspective. I have little appreciation and/or interest for any work (even when produced by Latter-day Saints) that simply tries to interpret the Bible to support one’s own theological bias.

In my opinion, many Latter-day Saint publications on the Old Testament are just as guilty of adopting this non-critical objective as their Evangelical/Catholic counterparts.