Three things

[_William Schryver]

Will:

Even if the papyrus scroll is as long as you say it is, what's the likelihood that Abraham would've begun writing his account in the center of the scroll, leaving room on the right and left edges for an anticipated Book of Breathings that would be written there 2,000 years later? And what's the likelihood that the Hor embalmists would've used a 2,000 year old scroll with pre-existing writing on which to pen the Book of Breathings instead of starting out with a brand-new empty scroll?

Sorry Shades. But this is a stupid question.

I like you, but I'm not going to play these silly games with you when there's nothing to be gained by it.

Incidentally, the so-called "Book of Breathings" has been mis-named for years. It is more accurately called "The Document of Fellowship" -- sort of an ancient Egyptian temple recommend, if you will.

[_Kishkumen]

Incidentally, the so-called "Book of Breathings" has been mis-named for years. It is more accurately called "The Document of Fellowship" -- sort of an ancient Egyptian temple recommend, if you will.

You have stated this a number of times now. Because one scholar has forwarded a hypothesis about the name of the document does not mean that the proposed name has suddenly become the only acceptable way to refer to it. Your indulgence in such pedantry is one more proof that you lack knowledge and substance.

[_Dr. Shades]

Sorry Shades. But this is a stupid question.

No, it isn't. It's probably the best possible question that can be asked.

I like you, but I'm not going to play these silly games with you when there's nothing to be gained by it.

I guess that there's "nothing to be gained by it" apologetically, so it's clear why you refuse to face it.

[_William Schryver]

Incidentally, the so-called "Book of Breathings" has been mis-named for years. It is more accurately called "The Document of Fellowship" -- sort of an ancient Egyptian temple recommend, if you will.

You have stated this a number of times now. Because one scholar has forwarded a hypothesis about the name of the document does not mean that the proposed name has suddenly become the only acceptable way to refer to it. Your indulgence in such pedantry is one more proof that you lack knowledge and substance.

I never claimed it was the "only acceptable way to refer to it."

I've only said that it is a more accurate English rendition of the title of the text. Gee has presented on this topic in professional venues, and to my knowledge, no one has yet to disagree with his argument. In fact, my impression is that it has been quite well received.

Of course, he couldn't ever hope to achieve approbation in the more academically rigorous confines of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™, now could he?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Now we're back to: Gee is a liar.

Frankly, I could care less whether Dr. Gee is a liar, incompetent, delusional, afflicted by confirmation bias, or all of the above. I have no particular interest in Dr. Gee personally whatsoever. You're the one who seems to be staking your personal friendship with him on the accuracy of his claims, so I'll leave you to fret about that on your own time. All that interests me is that in every case that I have rigorously examined Dr. Gee's arguments, I have found that he misrepresented the evidence or drew unwarranted conclusions from it. I am therefore not inclined to accept on Dr. Gee's authority something that contradicts three sets of photographs I have examined, including one that has a ruler in it.

Incidentally, the so-called "Book of Breathings" has been mis-named for years. It is more accurately called "The Document of Fellowship" -- sort of an ancient Egyptian temple recommend, if you will.

Anyone can present a hypothesis at a conference. Until this argument is published in a peer-reviewed Egyptological publication so that people can read and evaluate his conclusions, I'm holding off on actually using Dr. Gee's proposed title.

Since I'm getting sick of all the bluster around here, I think I'll take some time off. You read enough of this stuff and it starts to get to you.

Cheers,

-Chris

[_William Schryver]

Sorry Shades. But this is a stupid question.

No, it isn't. It's probably the best possible question that can be asked.

I like you, but I'm not going to play these silly games with you when there's nothing to be gained by it.

I guess that there's "nothing to be gained by it" apologetically, so it's clear why you refuse to face it.

Look, Shades, I've said I kind of like you. In comparison to some of the more despicable characters in these parts, you strike me as essentially a reasonable fellow. And I don't mean to insinuate that I'm some exalted expert on all these things. I don't pretend to that. But I have made this whole set of questions a focus of my autodidactic pursuits for about three years now, and with the added advantage of high-res scans of the relevant documents, I have a leg up on others who might also be interested, but who lack the same advantages.

That said, the fact is that you really don't know what you're talking about. And your ignorance of the status and import of the various arguments shows in the questions you ask.

And since I couldn't hope to achieve much in this venue even if there were a general understanding of the issues, it is even more futile to attempt it given the lack of understanding that is the common lot of your fellow denizens here. So forgive me if I don't lean over backwards in an attempt to spell it all out for you or anyone else who couldn't be convinced if Joseph Smith himself miraculously appeared and explained how it all went down.

[_William Schryver]

Chris:

Frankly, I could care less whether Dr. Gee is a liar, incompetent, delusional, afflicted by confirmation bias, or all of the above. I have no particular interest in Dr. Gee personally whatsoever. You're the one who seems to be staking your personal friendship with him on the accuracy of his claims, so I'll leave you to fret about that on your own time. All that interests me is that in every case that I have rigorously examined Dr. Gee's arguments, I have found that he misrepresented the evidence or drew unwarranted conclusions from it.

You mean, just like the unwarranted conclusion you drew from learning that late Greco-Roman papyrus was thickened to accommodate the usage of pens that would have torn the older style papyrus?

You see, I’ve had exactly the opposite experience. Every single time I have undertaken to verify a disputed claim made by John Gee, I have discovered that the critics’ arguments have been exaggerated or even just outright misrepresentations of the available evidence. This latest scroll length question is just the most recent example.

On the other hand, when I closely examined your assertion concerning papyrus thickness of .5 - .8 mm, I found that your academic rigor was lacking, and that you had drawn a conclusion that did not apply to the JSP. Shall I characterize you as a liar, or incompetent, or afflicted by confirmation bias? (Actually, the last is probably very true.) Well, I won’t. I will simply say that you are wrong. And I will demonstrate it.

I am therefore not inclined to accept on Dr. Gee's authority something that contradicts three sets of photographs I have examined, including one that has a ruler in it.

Despite the fact that he has long had access to the original papyri, and is a PhD in this very specific field of Ptolemaic-era Egypt. Well, of course, it is your prerogative to do so. I welcome you to attempt to publish formal refutations of Gee’s findings in terms of this issue.

Since I'm getting sick of all the bluster around here, I think I'll take some time off. You read enough of this stuff and it starts to get to you.

Yes, bluster of the sort where untrained amateurs cast unwarranted aspersions on the reputation of a man who has done nothing to merit it, and whose conclusions so far appear to be uncontradicted, except on obscure LDS-related message boards at the hands of mostly-anonymous message board posters.

You’re right: you read enough of this stuff, and it does start to get to you.
.
.
.
On a less-controversial note: Are you a Coldplay fan? I’m heading out your way in July to see them.

[_karl61]

Will wrote:

"I welcome you to attempt to publish formal refutations of Gee’s findings in terms of this issue."

Will Gee publish his findings in a journal that will be read by instructors of near eastern languages from Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc. Will he go on a tour and speak to groups of University Professors about the Book of Abraham issues who after his presentation can question him about his research and conclusions and may offer other explanations to his findings.

[_William Schryver]

Will wrote:

"I welcome you to attempt to publish formal refutations of Gee’s findings in terms of this issue."

Will Gee publish his findings in a journal that will be read by instructors of near eastern languages from Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc. Will he go on a tour and speak to groups of University Professors about the Book of Abraham issues who after his presentation can question him about his research and conclusions and may offer other explanations to his findings.

John has published and presented on many topics related to Book of Abraham questions.

In fact, here are two things from just the past year:

• “Hypocephali as Astronomical Diagrams,” Aegyptus et Panonnia Symposium, Budapest, Hungary, 16 October 2008.
• “Egyptologists’ Fallacies,” In Search of Egypt’s Past: Problems and Perspectives of the Historiography of Ancient Egypt, Vancouver, University of British Columbia, 23 April 2008.

I guess it remains to be seen what his colleagues have to say about his arguments. I know I'm looking forward to the publication of the proceedings.

[_karl61]

Will he get them to look at the Book of Abraham issues. I don't think the list you provided spoke about the Book of Abraham issues. Of course maybe until there is a general agreement within the LDS community then they can take it outside.