Kevin Graham wrote:On the subject of the Book of Abraham Gee has no credibility outside TBM circles. He is the equivalent of a Scientologist who just happens to be a credentialed astronomer. One who thinks evidence for his religion is manifest in the stars. How many other astronomers agree with him? As many as there are non-LDS Egyptologists who think the Book of Abraham has anything whatsoever to do with Abraham.
Zilch. Zero. Nada.
Will's smoke and mirrors won't change this fact.
Will has been digging his own grave over the past few years because he keeps marrying himself to Gee, insisting he should be taken seriously on the matter when he has already proven to be the fool. Why the hell would anyone take him seriously after what he has done?
When "amateurs" point out things that make him look stupid, all Will can do in response is appeal to his authority with junk like,"Well when you have been published in peer reviewed journals, only then, maybe you can respond to Gee." Anyone remember Gee's challenge to anyone who wanted to argue against him? He said we had to be able to translate Egyptian! What an idiot.
Will actually thinks this guy is above reproach. Even his own teacher can't offer criticism without it being dismissed as "anti-Mormon." Logic and fairness dictate that Gee be dismissed on the same grounds since he is more subjective from the other end of the spectrum. He is a devout Mormon whose entire universe would collapse if Joseph Smith were not truly a prophet who could translate ancient documents. Gee needs the Book of Abraham to be true more than Ritner needs it to be false.
Yes, Gee has an established track record of getting things wrong, even in his tiny booklet on the subject. I pointed out his dishonest usage of the "color" examples of the KEP and Chris and Brent have mopped the floors with him on other points he got wrong. I have taken a break from the subject for a year now and probably won't get back into it until something new is published.
Incidentally, I had almost forgotten how full of crap you are. It didn't take you long to remind me.
Yes, definitely, welcome back!
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
Chap wrote:It is good to see you back and apparently in full vigor.
I can now go to bed, safe in the knowledge that Gee's views on the Book of Abraham will not surge back into plausibility the minute I shut my eyes.
How is it that you believe you can logically connect everything Gee has ever written about the Book of Abraham to the rise or fall of his scroll length calculation? That seems completely illogical to me. It seems to me that each question, unless there is a logical relationship between it and another, ought to be considered on its own individual merits.
Do you see it differently?
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
Sorry Will, but those links will forever haunt you as long as you pontificate on this subject. It is enough to dismiss you and anything you have to say on the subject.
Chap wrote:It is good to see you back and apparently in full vigor.
I can now go to bed, safe in the knowledge that Gee's views on the Book of Abraham will not surge back into plausibility the minute I shut my eyes.
How is it that you believe you can logically connect everything Gee has ever written about the Book of Abraham to the rise or fall of his scroll length calculation? That seems completely illogical to me. It seems to me that each question, unless there is a logical relationship between it and another, ought to be considered on its own individual merits.
Do you see it differently?
My post was a kind of joke to greet Kevin Graham's return to the board after a dangerous accident and his recovery from that. Although It is sometimes obvious that he and I are not very compatible people, I wanted to say something nice to him, as a way of signing off.
There is no logical entailment between the implausibility of Gee's views on scroll length and the implausibility of his views on any other question.
But one major failure of critical judgment can be a bit like the 13th strike of a clock: it is not only disbelieved in itself, but casts doubt on everything that has gone before it, since it is the proof that the underlying mechanism is not entirely reliable.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:But one major failure of critical judgment can be a bit like the 13th strike of a clock: it is not only disbelieved in itself, but casts doubt on everything that has gone before it, since it is the proof that the underlying mechanism is not entirely reliable.
Let's not forget his argument about Pap. Leiden I 384.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Chap wrote:But one major failure of critical judgment can be a bit like the 13th strike of a clock: it is not only disbelieved in itself, but casts doubt on everything that has gone before it, since it is the proof that the underlying mechanism is not entirely reliable.
Let's not forget his argument about Pap. Leiden I 384vo.
B****r.
Your post comes too late for me. I have already forgotten his argument about Pap. Leiden I 384vo. Or last time I was in Leiden I would have made a point of going to have a look!
What was his (Gee's?) argument about Pap. Leiden I 384vo? Pretty please?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
The conclusion, by Edward H. Ashment, former Coordinator for Translation Services, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is:
CONCLUSIONS
Although he declares that faith is the 'real proof of scripture', John Gee paradoxically has gone to great lengths in his articles to develop evidence out of Christian Era magical spells from Egypt in an effort to authenticate the historicity of the Book of Abraham. Unfortunately, none of the six authenticating references he has presented is historically rigorous. Gee provides his own dramatic demonstration of that fact when he abandons the extraordinary claim he makes in his first article that he actually has a reference suggesting Abraham lying on a lion-couch altar calling on God, which he boldly declares 'compares closely with Joseph Smith's indication that Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham is an illustration of "Abraham fastened upon an altar" to be sacrificed by idolatrous priests'. After the review of his first piece pointed out that the evidence indicated clearly that the person on the lion-couch was a woman who was the object of a love spell, Gee abandons his remarkable claim and admits in his second article that the person on the lion-couch was a woman and that she was the object of a love spell. Only now he claims that she was to be sacrificed (on the lion couch) if she would not yield to her suitor, 'according to an old Egyptian formula'. The spell no longer is 'evidence' of Abraham on the altar. Now it is 'evidence' for three young virgins on the altar. Less dramatic, but no less significant is the fact that Gee has, as the reviews have shown, misquoted and misinterpreted the data and the sources in order to develop his authenticating evidence.
Gee's articles are illustrative of one of the two approaches that the Mormon apologetic school uses to deal with the major problem it faces, viz., for the plethora of proclaimed Truths that are to be rooted in history, there is a dearth of evidence.44 The first approach, used elsewhere,[45] involves the denial of contrary evidence on philosophical grounds. It assumes relativistically that evidence that is not faith-promoting exists only in the head of the 'objectivist' historian, who would have a hidden agendum, but who would pretend to be empirical. On the other hand, it assumes objectivistically that the apologist would have the sure, 'objective knowledge' of proclaimed Truth, with the result that he could be more discretionary with evidence.[46]
The second approach the implicit method of Gee's articles involves the logical fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'. Gee appeals to the 19th-century CE Book of Abraham as an already historically-True template to recognize or ignore 'evidence' regarding its historicity. In other words, the Book of Abraham would reflect an original revelation (an 'Uroffenbarung'), of which authenticating bits and pieces survive in various sources.[47] Something is hailed as 'evidence' if it authenticates the template and ignored if it does not. That is why Gee does not inform his readers about the magical nature of the papyri in his first article. That is why he avoids the fact that his occurrences of the name of Abraham in the magical spells have no more meaning than potent abracadabra words. That is why to Gee a white stone with several magical words on it becomes a seer stone as in DC 130:10-11. That is why he freely interprets the lion-couch vignette and the magical spells following it in accordance with Joseph Smith's interpretation of Facsimile One in his first article, or Abr 1:11-12 in his second. That is why he feels free to connect Magical 8.8 to Book of the Dead chapter 163 to Book of the Dead chapter 162 to the hypocephalus to Abraham to Joseph Smith's interpretation of Facsimile Two. That is why he omits significant amounts of original material in the last two magical texts he cites to make them appear as strong evidence for the the Book of Abraham.
More than anything, the articles indicate that Gee's scholarly vision is clouded by his anxiety to produce 'faith-promoting evidence'. Readers of apologia, consequently, must be extremely cautious about accepting such 'faith-promoting' claims. As the above reviews show, apologia can present 'faithful history' that is not historically rigorous to an unsuspecting audience. Unfortunately, everyone loses: apologists are not taken seriously by their collegues in the academic world; church members are mis-informed; and embarrassment may ultimately come to the church, which prides itself in adhering to the honorable claims of its Thirteenth Article of Faith.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
There is no logical entailment between the implausibility of Gee's views on scroll length and the implausibility of his views on any other question.
But one major failure of critical judgment can be a bit like the 13th strike of a clock: it is not only disbelieved in itself, but casts doubt on everything that has gone before it, since it is the proof that the underlying mechanism is not entirely reliable.
I agree entirely that, if Gee is as wrong as you appear to make him on this particular question, it will constitute a serious blow to his reputation. I know I will be disappointed in him as a friend as much as I will be in relation to his professional stature.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
Chap wrote:What was his (Gee's?) argument about Pap. Leiden I 384vo? Pretty please?
This is the saga of the magical papyrus with the lion couch scene. Gee backed off of his initial position to the point where he claimed that he was simply showing that the name Abraham was known and used in this Egyptian context because it is used in spells. This, of course, is nothing new to those who study ancient magic, where names from different traditions (like Hebrew names) are used for their exoticism and supposed special power.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
William Schryver wrote:I agree entirely that, if Gee is as wrong as you appear to make him on this particular question, it will constitute a serious blow to his reputation. I know I will be disappointed in him as a friend as much as I will be in relation to his professional stature.
Why as a friend? His accuracy on certain scholarly issues reflects on his character somehow?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
