Three things

[_Kishkumen]

If someone could point out where a respected Egyptologist wrote something that shows approval of Dr Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics, I'd appreciate it.

I have no doubt Dr Gee is respected by his peers for his knowledge of Egyptology. I'd like to see something from his Egyptologist peers that shows they respect his Book of Abraham apologetics.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks, harmony. You probably noticed that I already asked this question, but Willy prefers not to state the bleedingly obvious: there are none. I have no problem with this, but I do have a problem with this attitude that one cannot have a legitimate, and probably correct, idea about the Book of Abraham without having a PhD in Egyptology and without taking the time to recap the entire history of the debate.

Here are the facts that suffice for me, and most who are not operating on testimony:

Joseph Smith produced numerous supposed translations of ancient texts that are not translations in the usual sense of the word. When those translations can be checked against the current state of knowledge about the language in question, the results do not match up, and we have in the papyri both the ancient documents and the accompanying translation.

As I have stated to Will, I have no problem if he wants to believe that the Book of Abraham narrative is ancient. Certainly even the smartest of people have been taken in, and I would think no less of him for having long ago joined the ranks of the taken. But it irritates me to no end when it is suggested that the bleedingly obvious is somehow trumped by the altogether unconvincing byways of apologetic arguments.

I await positive evidence and much of it to convince me that something is indeed credible. I don't take some guy's word for it, even if he lived in the early 1800s, and then expect everyone else to prove his dubious claims wrong beyond any infinitesimal possibility of doubt before I will give them up. Clearly, Will's devotion to his spiritual testimony has placed him in that position. I feel no shame in not joining him there. None whatsoever.

[_CaliforniaKid]

William,

Funny that Gee's colleagues in the world of Egyptology do not share in your opinion.

Colleagues like Robert K. Ritner?

How many of Gee's colleagues have you interrogated as to the credibility of his theories? And how many of the ones you interrogated are actually aware of his missing papyrus theory and the issues involved? Your appeal to authority in defense of a discredited theory wouldn't mean much even if you could substantiate it, but I rather doubt you can do so, anyway.

Here is what Dr. Marc Coenen had to say about the missing papyrus theory: "No one denies that other funerary and/or ritual compositions are sometimes appended to a Book of the Dead or other funerary compositions. However, concluding that a record of Abraham or any other text foreign to Ptolemaic Egyptian funerary and/or liturgical practice was once attached to the Smith papyri is an assertion not based upon widely accepted Egyptological analysis."

In any case, I hope all is well in your corner of our great country, in which all are free to believe as they wish in spite of evidence to the contrary. Will you be attending SMPT or Sunstone, by any chance?

Blessings,

-Chris

[_Kishkumen]

Here is what Dr. Marc Coenen had to say about the missing papyrus theory: "No one denies that other funerary and/or ritual compositions are sometimes appended to a Book of the Dead or other funerary compositions. However, concluding that a record of Abraham or any other text foreign to Ptolemaic Egyptian funerary and/or liturgical practice was once attached to the Smith papyri is an assertion not based upon widely accepted Egyptological analysis."

Ouch. There's that evidence thing again.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Gee himself expressed his deep weariness in an issue of the FARMS Review. He also rather foolishly admitted that the Church is hiding materials pertaining to the Book of Abraham.

You know, Scrotch, you and your sidekick Kissassman make one hell of an impressive team!

Incidentally, lest any sentient readers believe your spurious claim above has any validity at all, I can assure them it does not. But keep churning it out, Scrotch. As always, you've got a very receptive audience on hand.

Hey, Will---

Have you ever had an dealings with Gee? Have you ever spoken to him, or corresponded with him?

[_Brackite]

Professor Robert K. Ritner is an ethical and a real Egyptologist with integrity.

The Following important information is from Professor Robert K. Ritner's University Web Site Page:

Robert K. Ritner
Professor of Egyptology

Robert K. Ritner is currently Professor of Egyptology at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and was from 1991-1996 the first Marilyn M. Simpson Assistant Professor of Egyptology at Yale University. Dr. Ritner specializes in Roman, Hellenistic, Late and Third Intermediate Period (Libyan and Nubian) Egypt and is the author of the book The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, and over 100 publications on Egyptian religion, magic, medicine, language and literature, as well as social and political history. He has lectured extensively on each of these topics throughout the United States, Europe and Egypt. In association with The Field Museum of Chicago, Dr. Ritner was the academic advisor to two recent British Museum exhibits “Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth,” and “Eternal Egypt,” and he has served as consultant and lecturer for the travelling Cairo Museum exhibit “Quest for Immortality: Treasures of Ancient Egypt.”


Education:
PhD (with honors) Egyptology
1987 Dissertation. The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice.
Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
The University of Chicago

BA (with honors) Psychology
1975 Department of Psychology
Rice University


Awards:

1995-1996 Morse Fellowship for Scholarly Research, Yale University
1994 Samuel and Ronnie Heyman Prize for Outstanding Scholarly Publication or Humanities, Yale University
1991 Mellon Grant, The University of Pennsylvania (declined for Yale faculty position)
1977-1979 University Unendowed Fellowship, The University of Chicago

Here is the Link to his whole University Web Site Page:

http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/ne ... es/ritner/

[_William Schryver]

Chris:

Here is what Dr. Marc Coenen had to say about the missing papyrus theory: "No one denies that other funerary and/or ritual compositions are sometimes appended to a Book of the Dead or other funerary compositions. However, concluding that a record of Abraham or any other text foreign to Ptolemaic Egyptian funerary and/or liturgical practice was once attached to the Smith papyri is an assertion not based upon widely accepted Egyptological analysis."

If you stick around here long enough, you’ll have this propagandist bit down cold.

Tell you the truth, you disappoint me with this statement from Coenen. Sure, Coenen is perfectly correct when he says, “concluding that a record of Abraham … was once attached to the Smith papyri is an assertion not based upon widely accepted Egyptological analysis.”

As well might he have said, “concluding that an angel delivered ancient gold plates to someone for translation is an assertion not based upon widely accepted historical analysis.”

And?

What does that say about Gee’s specific arguments concerning the KEP or the JSP? Well, obviously nothing. Coenen is actually taking a politically and scholarly prudent posture here. He’s to be commended for not going as far as Ritner has on occasion in making assertions that exceed his possible knowledge.

But it says nothing about John’s assertions concerning the length of the scrolls, or whether or not there is evidence of multiple ink stocks being used in the KEPA documents, or any other argument made by him or others relevant to the exclusively Mormon-related documents.

I dare you to include this quote in a paper you attempt to publish. I double-dog dare you.
.
.
.
Kissassman:

Ouch. There's that evidence thing again.

You do well to stick with your strong suit: shameless sycophantic fawning in lieu of any actual knowledge of the subject matter.
.
.
.
Scrotch:

Hey, Will---

Have you ever had an dealings with Gee? Have you ever spoken to him, or corresponded with him?

Why don’t you consult one of your legion of confidential informants? Surely they will know the answer to this question.

In the meantime, you can imagine that John wouldn’t know me from … well … Abraham.
.
.
.
Brackite:

[Kissassman-like cut-and-paste of Robert Ritner’s CV.]

Hey, Brackite, I’ve got a question for you: Are KEPA #2 and #3 simultaneously-created transcriptions of Joseph Smith’s original oral dictation of the first 1½ chapters of the Book of Abraham? If you answer yes, how do you know?

[_harmony]

Perhaps he didn't see it. I'll post it again, without comment, just in case he wasn't dodging the question:

Will:

If someone could point out where a respected Egyptologist wrote something that shows approval of Dr Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics, I'd appreciate it.

I have no doubt Dr Gee is respected by his peers for his knowledge of Egyptology. I'd like to see something from his Egyptologist peers that shows they respect his Book of Abraham apologetics.

Thanks in advance.

Give it a shot, Will. Show us what kind of support Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics really has among his Egyptologist peers.

[_Dr. Shades]

OK, Kissassman, put your money where your mouth is. Demonstrate your knowledge of the issues by describing a few arguments Professor Gee has made, vis-a-vis the Book of Abraham, that you believe have "not borne scrutiny."

Three should suffice.

I'm not Kishkumen, but I can think of two:

• Gee's assertion that the characters in the left margin were placed there after the English text has not borne scrutiny, and
• Gee's assertion that the original papyrii length between Facsimile #1 and Facsimile #3 was 28 feet (I believe) has also not borne scrutiny.

[_William Schryver]

If someone could point out where a respected Egyptologist wrote something that shows approval of Dr Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics, I'd appreciate it.

I have no doubt Dr Gee is respected by his peers for his knowledge of Egyptology. I'd like to see something from his Egyptologist peers that shows they respect his Book of Abraham apologetics.

Thanks in advance.

Besides Kerry Muhlestein and John Gee, I don't know of any Egyptologists who give a rat's ass about Book of Abraham apologetics.

What logical conclusions do you suppose you can draw from that fact, Dissonance?

Give it your best shot.

[_William Schryver]

OK, Kissassman, put your money where your mouth is. Demonstrate your knowledge of the issues by describing a few arguments Professor Gee has made, vis-a-vis the Book of Abraham, that you believe have "not borne scrutiny."

Three should suffice.

I'm not Kishkumen, but I can think of two:

• Gee's assertion that the characters in the left margin were placed there after the English text has not borne scrutiny, and
• Gee's assertion that the original papyrii length between Facsimile #1 and Facsimile #3 was 28 feet (I believe) has also not borne scrutiny.

Really?

Demonstrate it. Aside from message board posters, who has scrutinized either of these assertions? Where can I read about it?