dartagnan wrote:That is another funny thing. Dan Peterson informed us years ago that somewhere in the scholarly journals Gee had responded and refuted Ritner. Funny how Gee never provided such a refutation in his FROB articles. In any event, why the secret? What journal issues is he referring to?
When I asked him he told me I needed to email Gee and request that he tell me where I could find them. I did, and Gee never responded. Ritner said he never knew what journal articles responded to him either. Now let's see if Will is willing to provide the list. I suspect he's just talking out of his ass as usual, with this pompous, "You don't read Egyptological journals like me! Because you're not shmart like meeeeeeeee!"
Maybe Will can do us a solid by providing the reference to Gee's refutation of Ritner in a scholarly journal as well. This looks like an excellent opportunity for him to show us all up with some real substance. I am eager to see him produce this material for us. Undoubtedly an interesting discussion will result.
In regard to Professor Ritner's standards, anyone who has not read my response, “S3 mi nn: A Temporary Conclusion,” Göttinger Miszellen 202 (2004): 55-58 is NOT in a position to comment on the matter. GM is also a peer reviewed journal. Unlike JNES, it is a specifically Egyptological journal.
On which one poster observed:
It describes its topic, which is not a wide one, in its opening words: ‘Recent debate over the meaning of the expression S3 mi nn has focused on whether the phrase should mean “son of the same titled” or “son of the similarly titled” …’. It is directed to one footnote (note 45) in Ritner’s article, and says nothing apparently relevant to the status (or lack of it) of Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham as a text from ancient Egypt.
In regard to Professor Ritner's standards, anyone who has not read my response, “S3 mi nn: A Temporary Conclusion,” Göttinger Miszellen 202 (2004): 55-58 is NOT in a position to comment on the matter. GM is also a peer reviewed journal. Unlike JNES, it is a specifically Egyptological journal.
On which one poster observed:
It describes its topic, which is not a wide one, in its opening words: ‘Recent debate over the meaning of the expression S3 mi nn has focused on whether the phrase should mean “son of the same titled” or “son of the similarly titled” …’. It is directed to one footnote (note 45) in Ritner’s article, and says nothing apparently relevant to the status (or lack of it) of Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham as a text from ancient Egypt.
Well, that is not exactly the lively and growing debate that Will referred to. I am sure he must have had more in mind (and something more pertinent to Joseph Smith's ability to translate Egyptian). I remain eager to learn more about this lively and growing debate in academia concerning Joseph Smith's abilities in reading Egyptian.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
In regard to Professor Ritner's standards, anyone who has not read my response, “S3 mi nn: A Temporary Conclusion,” Göttinger Miszellen 202 (2004): 55-58 is NOT in a position to comment on the matter. GM is also a peer reviewed journal. Unlike JNES, it is a specifically Egyptological journal.
On which one poster observed:
It describes its topic, which is not a wide one, in its opening words: ‘Recent debate over the meaning of the expression S3 mi nn has focused on whether the phrase should mean “son of the same titled” or “son of the similarly titled” …’. It is directed to one footnote (note 45) in Ritner’s article, and says nothing apparently relevant to the status (or lack of it) of Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham as a text from ancient Egypt.
Well, that is not exactly the lively and growing debate that Will referred to. I am sure he must have had more in mind (and something more pertinent to Joseph Smith's ability to translate Egyptian). I remain eager to learn more about this lively and growing debate in academia concerning Joseph Smith's abilities in reading Egyptian.
Don't hold your breath. If dartagnan is correct in recalling that DCP told him some years back that Gee had published a counterblast to Ritner, this (published 2004) is it. There is certainly nothing likely shown on Gee's home page. Of course if we are wrong, Schryver will tell us. If we are right, he won't.
Check the rest of the thread cited. You will see more than one Gee supporter making large claims that the little piece referred to holes Ritner below the waterline in a major way. This is the best he could do.
Just so you know, Brent's upcoming volume will include articles by other authors, including Robert Ritner who will be responding in detail to Gee's subsequent claims. I suspect it will address this piece as well.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Trevor wrote:Well, that is not exactly the lively and growing debate that Will referred to. I am sure he must have had more in mind (and something more pertinent to Joseph Smith's ability to translate Egyptian). I remain eager to learn more about this lively and growing debate in academia concerning Joseph Smith's abilities in reading Egyptian.
We have also frequently heard claims that Gee is presenting on Book of Abraham related subjects at Egyptological conferences. But the only example I've seen is that Gee argued at one conference that the word "Breathings" in the so-called Book of Breathings should actually be translated "Fellowship". I think he's taking the Chinese water torture approach to rebutting the critics. :)
Trevor wrote:Well, that is not exactly the lively and growing debate that Will referred to. I am sure he must have had more in mind (and something more pertinent to Joseph Smith's ability to translate Egyptian). I remain eager to learn more about this lively and growing debate in academia concerning Joseph Smith's abilities in reading Egyptian.
We have also frequently heard claims that Gee is presenting on Book of Abraham related subjects at Egyptological conferences. But the only example I've seen is that Gee argued at one conference that the word "Breathings" in the so-called Book of Breathings should actually be translated "Fellowship". I think he's taking the Chinese water torture approach to rebutting the critics. :)
His pointless and non light-shedding 'New Light on the Book of Abraham' talk is a good example of what he actually produces when he does commit himself in public.
Make no mistake. This man is suffering, and he knows that it can't end well.
I just wish he would get a job outside BYU, stop the apologetic crap, and do some real Egyptology. Go to church on Sundays if he wants to, but GET A LIFE based in reality for the rest of the week. And the same goes for the fat boy too. I wish I could read Arabic like he can! And from what we hear BYU doesn't even WANT them to do mopologetics.
CaliforniaKid wrote:We have also frequently heard claims that Gee is presenting on Book of Abraham related subjects at Egyptological conferences. But the only example I've seen is that Gee argued at one conference that the word "Breathings" in the so-called Book of Breathings should actually be translated "Fellowship". I think he's taking the Chinese water torture approach to rebutting the critics. :)
Surely that is not the lively and growing debate to which Will refers. Will said that there is a debate fitting this description about Joseph Smith's interpretations of Egyptian. I am waiting to hear from him about this debate. I would like bibliography. Maybe some transcripts from conference panels, and the like. Will, when are you getting back to us on this?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
I am bumping so that Will does not forget that we are waiting for him to provide evidence of the growing and lively debate he talked about in this thread.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Oh, make no mistake about it. Will knows precisely what is taking place here.
His problem is that we keep calling his bluff.
He's now trying to figure out a way to spin these obscure and irrelevant "Egyptological journal" articles into a "lively debate" of any significance. As chap noted, if he can think of a way to do this, we'll hear from him. If he can't, we won't.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
dartagnan wrote:Oh, make no mistake about it. Will knows precisely what is taking place here.
His problem is that we keep calling his bluff.
He's now trying to figure out a way to spin these obscure and irrelevant "Egyptological journal" articles into a "lively debate" of any significance. As chap noted, if he can think of a way to do this, we'll hear from him. If he can't, we won't.
"Articles"? So far we have discovered only one publication in an Egyptological journal with marginal relevance to Book of Abraham matters - in that it attacks a footnote in Ritner's long and outspoken critique.