Dear John Gee

[_karl61]

I was thinking about this yesterday cinepro. I was thinking that if the Jewish population thought that there were actuall writings or copy of writings of Abraham and Joseph that they would be the most interested group in the Country, yet they don't even give it a yawn. This would be as big as the Ark of the Covenant.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're unspeakably naïve, cinepro. In several different but fundamentally significant ways.

And no, I don't even know how I would explain it to you. (I've tried to do so previously for a few non-academic naïfs, and despair of it.) Academia simply doesn't work like that, but I can understand that people unfamiliar with academia might not get it.

I don't see a paper about the Book of Abraham in a non LDS publication.

Then you're not paying close attention.

[_karl61]

?

from wikipedia:

# Gee, John (1987). Creation: The Book of Abraham, Science, and the Ancient Near East. [University scholar project]. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
# —— (1991). Notes on the Sons of Horus. [masters thesis]. Provo, UT: FARMS.
# —— (1998). The Requirements of Ritual Purity in Ancient Egypt. [doctoral dissertation]. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
# —— (1999). A History of the Joseph Smith Papyri and Book of Abraham. Provo, UT: FARMS.
# —— (1999). The Ancient Owners of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Provo, UT: FARMS.
# —— (2004). 'There Needs No Ghost, My Lord, Come from the Grave to Tell Us This': Dreams and Angels in Ancient Egypt. Society of Biblical Literature. http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/Gee_Dreams.pdf.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Good grief. I thought I was joking[/i when I said this:

Do you need me to extract from it the ones that appear in non-LDS publications?

You really [i]aren't paying attention.

Look at the section of the bibliography called "Articles."

[_Doctor Scratch]

You're unspeakably naïve, cinepro. In several different but fundamentally significant ways.

Yet more evidence that you are completely and utterly humorless when it comes to apologetics. But, it's this next bit that piqued my interest:

And no, I don't even know how I would explain it to you. (I've tried to do so previously for a few non-academic naïfs, and despair of it.) Academia simply doesn't work like that, but I can understand that people unfamiliar with academia might not get it.

This is complete and utter bull. If you have a real explanation, then share it. Insulting cinepro's education level is beneath you (or it least it ought to be).

[_karl61]

I'm reading fine because I wrote "paper".

[_Daniel Peterson]

I haven't insulted cinepro's level of education. I have no idea whatsoever what it is, but have never thought that he was uneducated or ignorant.

I do, however, think that some critics are very, very naïve about the nature of academic discourse. I've tried, several times, to explain why notions like cinepro's (expressed above) are, based on my experience, utterly wrong headed. Wholly in vain.

[_harmony]

I haven't insulted cinepro's level of education. I have no idea whatsoever what it is, but have never thought that he was uneducated or ignorant.

I do, however, think that some critics are very, very naïve about the nature of academic discourse. I've tried, several times, to explain why notions like cinepro's (expressed above) are, based on my experience, utterly wrong headed. Wholly in vain.

What would happen, were Dr Gee to be invited to a conference about Egyptology in which he was invited to present a specific paper on Egyptology... and the paper he delivered was about the Book of Abraham? Would they throw him out? Would they shake their heads in dismay? Would they pity him? Or would they simply ignore it?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Would they throw him out? Would they shake their heads in dismay? Would they pity him? Or would they simply ignore it?

They haven't thrown him out, shaken their heads in dismay, ignored him, or (so far as I'm aware) pitied him.

[The Stig]

Trevor:

I respect the fact that Dr. Gee has published peer-reviewed articles in the reputable journals of his discipline. I am waiting to see how his work there connects with his defense of the Book of Abraham.

I've been traveling on business for the past two weeks and haven't followed this conversation (or any others on any message boards) during that time. And, truth be told, I haven't missed it. It's actually been quite a liberating feeling to be free from many of these futile discussions.

Nevertheless, in response to your query above, I will say first that I don't believe for a minute that you are seriously "waiting to see how his work there connects with his defense of the Book of Abraham." I'm actually quite convinced that your judgments on these questions are long since made, and that there is nothing that will sway you from the conclusions you have reached.

That said, I am aware of many of the things Professor Gee has published in various Egyptological journals. I have readily perceived the relationship of many of those things to the Book of Abraham. I have also readily perceived that John is taking a long view of these things, and is methodically building a body of work towards a definite end.

It matters little to me (as it does likewise to him) if people on this message board (or elsewhere in the various enclaves of Mormon critics) appreciate the significance of his arguments/findings, or if they are persuaded of the authenticity of the Book of Abraham on account of his scholarly work. Indeed, I am quite certain that few, if any, on this message board would be persuaded even if one were to rise from the dead and affirm the truth of these things.

In any case, I am not about to opine on these things in this venue. No one here has previously shown any capacity for appreciating, for example, the significance of many of the prescient observations Nibley made in The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, let alone the increasingly accepted (in mainstream Egyptological circles) fact that the so-called "Book of Breathings" (better translated as the Letter of Fellowship Written by Isis) is more accurately understood as a kind of "temple recommend" for the bearer, and as such would be a plausible companion text to something like the Book of Abraham.

I have become convinced that the Pearl of Great Price was always intended to be a collection of essentially "gnostic" texts. Their value is properly appreciated by those whose faith and spiritual preparation have positioned them to receive the "greater light and knowledge" contained therein, and conversely, those who lack such faith and spiritual preparation cannot help but see these things as preposterous.

I am satisfied that this is as it should be, and I grow less and less inclined with each passing day to fight against that inevitable reality.
.
.
.
Now, having traveled from Utah to Pennsylvania to Maryland; thence to Nevada and California in the past ten days, I am going to take a shower and settle blissfully into my own bed for the first time in what seems like eons.