John Gee, Historian

[_Kishkumen]

Gee is underplaying the extent of Joseph Smith's exposure to and familiarity with the Bible before he translated the Book of Mormon. The 1832 version of the first vision creates problems for Gee's argument.

I think "underplaying" is a generous assessment of Gee's neglect of the 1832 account.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

There are a number of words one could use to describe Gee's argument, but scholarship and accuracy are not among them.

[_Abaddon]

Despite the fact that, according to Gee the historian, Joseph Smith readily recognized the biblical quotations of Moroni, chapter and verse, he did not read the Bible:

36 After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:

37 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

38 And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

39 He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

40 In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when “they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,” but soon would come.

41 He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be. And he further stated that the fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in. He quoted many other passages of scripture, and offered many explanations which cannot be mentioned here.

How would Joseph have recalled where Moroni departed from the Bible and where he was quoting precisely if he was biblically illiterate?

If I recall, Joseph Smith started writing JS-H in 1839. Putting on my Mormon hat, that's plenty of time to get familiar with the Bible and recognize the scriptures and context of what Moroni was telling him in his room years earlier.

Obviously, I believe Joseph Smith was making it all up, but I think this thread about John Gee is a bit of a stretch; he never said Joseph Smith didn't read any of the Bible prior to translation, he implied and by his references to Lucy Macks history, it's clear he meant Joseph Smith didn't read the Bible cover to cover.

Hence, I think this thread is much ado about nothing...

But, since I think John Gee is an intellectually, dishonest bastard in his Book of Abraham apologetics, I will continue to read this thread because I find it funny, haha.

[Guest]

If I recall, Joseph Smith started writing JS-H in 1839. Putting on my Mormon hat, that's plenty of time to get familiar with the Bible and recognize the scriptures and context of what Moroni was telling him in his room years earlier.

I get what you are saying here, Abaddon, and, yes, one could always argue that Joseph Smith embellished his familiarity with the Bible after the fact. However, the 1832 account of the First Vision suggests one really doesn't have to suppose that he was unfamiliar with that material in 1823.

Obviously, I believe Joseph Smith was making it all up, but I think this thread about John Gee is a bit of a stretch; he never said Joseph Smith didn't read any of the Bible prior to translation, he implied and by his references to Lucy Macks history, it's clear he meant Joseph Smith didn't read the Bible cover to cover.

Hence, I think this thread is much ado about nothing...

I don't think it is a stretch or much ado about nothing. First, the "to do" is about Gee distorting history in an attempt to make the Maxwell Institute, his employer, look bad. He is saying that the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies publishes anti-Mormon writings in order to stir up antipathy for the people working there. Much ado about nothing? Hardly.

On the point of this being a stretch, it really isn't. Granted, Gee does quote Lucy Mack Smith's statement about Joseph not reading the Bible through, but then look at how he summarizes her statement:

Joseph Smith had not read the Bible and was not inclined to read much anyway.

Gee is happy to invest all kinds of time in this bogus argument as though precision were required, but, when it comes to his own rhetoric, he is anything but precise. And he is imprecise exactly in the way that best suits his bogus argument to the effect that Joseph Smith was ignorant of the Bible. Nowhere does Gee quote the 1832 account. Why not? Because he knows that it completely destroys the false impression he is constructing.

If one considers Joseph Smith's 1832 account in assessing the question of his biblical literacy, then it becomes difficult to see how this could be true:

Joseph Smith seems to have first systematically read the Bible when he was doing his own translation.

And certainly not this:

So Joseph Smith never read the Bible before he translated the Book of Mormon, did not even own one, and was ignorant of it.

This statement represents all kinds fudging in a context where a responsible scholar should not fudge. A more honest assessment would perhaps read like this:

Joseph Smith was perhaps less biblically literate than some of his family and peers, and was certainly not known for his mastery of Bible. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that he read the Bible seriously in the years leading up to his First Vision, and maybe after. Although he did not own his own Bible before 1829, he had access to his family's Bible. We can be confident in stating, however, that Joseph Smith was certainly not ignorant of the Bible.

Despite the fact that Joseph Smith was biblically aware, the idea that he had a close knowledge of the Apocrypha is debatable to the point of being doubtful. For this reason and others, I disagree with Owen's argument.

That is all Gee really needs to do. The fact that he ignores evidence and rhetorically fudges to the extent that he does is actually a big deal. The man was trained as an historian at one of our country's premier institutions of higher learning. He should know better.

[_Chap]

... The man was trained as a historian at one of our country's premier institutions of higher learning. ...

Ah, well. There were some problems there, I seem to recall.

[_Symmachus]

There is also the further problem of the way that Gee conceives of the Biblical text as being a simple written artifact in a vacuum. This might be beyond Gee's level of sophistication (and not just because he is an Egyptologist), but the Bible is more than just a written text. People who have never read the Bible--including a lot of Mormons, who never get past Genesis 2 in the reading, really--still know quite a lot about it, from stories to quotations, because it is mediated through more than just the written text alone.

Joseph Smith's family was obviously in an environment where that sort of mediation happened a lot (preachers, etc.) and in his own family the Bible was very much a presence. If Joseph Smith didn't own a Bible and make marginal notes the way, say, a 21st century Mormon academic with an endowed university position might, that is not prima facie evidence that Joseph knew nothing about it or was "ignorant of it." As Kish has shown, all the evidence suggests that the Bible had a strong presence in Joseph Smith's thought-world, so the burden is really on Gee to show why we should discount that evidence and assume that the Book of Mormon was written/translated/revealed/composed/dictated (whichever you prefer) in a conceptual vacuum.

[_Abaddon]

@kishkumen.

Thanks for the additional context and motives.

*bows

(Gee is so slimy it's sickening.)

[_Symmachus]

The fact that he ignores evidence and rhetorically fudges to the extent that he does is actually a big deal. The man was trained as an historian at one of our country's premier institutions of higher learning. He should know better.

Meh, Yale Egyptology hasn't been premier anything for decades. Except maybe one of the premier academic venues for sexual predation.

And in any case, remember, as Gee's inestimable colleague reminds us, a lot of what we learn in school is wrong.

[_Kishkumen]

There is also the further problem of the way that Gee conceives of the Biblical text as being a simple written artifact in a vacuum. This might be beyond Gee's level of sophistication (and not just because he is an Egyptologist), but the Bible is more than just a written text. People who have never read the Bible--including a lot of Mormons, who never get past Genesis 2 in the reading, really--still know quite a lot about it, from stories to quotations, because it is mediated through more than just the written text alone.

Joseph Smith's family was obviously in an environment where that sort of mediation happened a lot (preachers, etc.) and in his own family the Bible was very much a presence. If Joseph Smith didn't own a Bible and make marginal notes the way, say, a 21st century Mormon academic with an endowed university position might, that is not prima facie evidence that Joseph knew nothing about it or was "ignorant of it." As Kish has shown, all the evidence suggests that the Bible had a strong presence in Joseph Smith's thought-world, so the burden is really on Gee to show why we should discount that evidence and assume that the Book of Mormon was written/translated/revealed/composed/dictated (whichever you prefer) in a conceptual vacuum.

A very insightful post as usual, consul. You are right that his treatment of the Bible is very limited, and I think that this too is deliberate. It is almost impossible for us to appreciate the extent to which Joseph Smith was influenced by the Bible via different media and venues. The Bible was part of his language. The Book of Mormon is so thoroughly engaged with the Bible on every level that it would be impossible to conceive of the former's existence absent such complex and extensive exposure. The entire framework, the language, the narrative, and the characters of the Book of Mormon are all influenced by biblical precedents. The Bible may not explain the Book of Mormon, but it would be impossible to understand the Book of Mormon without it.

[_Kishkumen]

Meh, Yale Egyptology hasn't been premier anything for decades. Except maybe one of the premier academic venues for sexual predation.

And in any case, remember, as Gee's inestimable colleague reminds us, a lot of what we learn in school is wrong.

Yale Egyptology is not the full measure of Yale, but I get your point.

Ritner, in any case, seems to be an excellent scholar.

Of course, Ritner is no longer at Yale, but he was when Gee was in the program.