"2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Project

[_Fence Sitter]

Are you saying that Gee's job at BYU is on the line?

I have no inside information regarding how this affects Gee's job. I would note that the Chair he holds has been transferred away from the MI in what appears to be an effort to distance the MI from Gee, but beyond that I don't know.

[Guest]

Anything the editors say about Egyptian language, papyri, or characters is beyond their skill and training.

The same could be said for Joseph Smith! Isn't that right? Tell me John, what did Smith know about the the Egyptian language and the characters on Facsimile No. 3? Surely you don't think the Explanations he tendered reflect the knowledge of a trained Egyptologist, do you?

Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.
Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.
Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.

[_Shulem]

It is regretful that although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints counts several faithful Egyptologists among its membership, the editors deliberately chose not to involve them in any serious way.

It's also regretful that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints refuses to allow credible Egyptologists to correct the errors in Joseph Smith's Facsimile No. 3 Explanations. The church continues to print these errors -- all of them, and they are many. These 19th century errors are glaringly obvious, wouldn't you agree, John?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Two words:

Brian Hauglid.

And,

Matthew C. Godfrey, Managing Historian
Robin Scott Jensen, Associate Managing Historian
Riley M. Lorimer, Associate Editorial Manager
Brent M. Rogers, Associate Managing Historian
Nathan N. Waite, Associate Editorial Manager

Surely the staff of those involved with the Joseph Smith Papers Project prayed and sought guidance from the Lord on who to consult and how to proceed? Surely the Lord answered their prayers? Did he not?

Doesn't John Gee believe in the power of prayer? It seems he doesn't. This is a red flag. This is a sign that he's losing faith in the institution in which he serves.

I believe that both of you are correct. The Mopologists have a barely concealed hatred of Hauglid, due to what I'm assuming is a feeling that they were betrayed by him. He publicly criticized some of the old-school Book of Abraham Mopologetics, and so they are, of course, going to crap on everything he does.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'll reiterate my call for the release of Schryver's 'opus turdus':

I'm officially calling for the release of the Schryver Papers. I'm calling out the mopologists. I'm declaring that:

1) They haven't read the Scryver Papers because

2) There never were any ready-to-print essays.

This is actually pretty stunning when you think about it. They've been alluding to the papers as a sort of deus ex chartam explanation for the Book of Abraham. There's a sort of passing reference to them in context of some conversation where they give it the whiff of credibility, but never seem to be able to *snap* actually produce a copy.

This is getting stranger and stranger as time passes, yet these slippery treasures seem to never manifest, don't they?

- Doc

Hey, Kiwi57. Have YOU read Schryver's super awesome, but unpublished essay?

- Doc

[_moksha]

If an Egyptologist could have spotted upside-down text, then it would have helped Volume 4. With this additional information, perhaps Dr. Gee could have included the missing portions of the long scroll in this new volume (the Book of the Unfettered Tapir).

[_empirious]

If an Egyptologist could have spotted upside-down text, then it would have helped Volume 4. With this additional information, perhaps Dr. Gee could have included the missing portions of the long scroll in this new volume (the Book of the Unfettered Tapir).

The editors learned from Kerry Muhlestein (not Gee) one photo was upside down but it was already too late, so it was noted on an errata sheet included with the volume. Gee is full of bs as usual.

[_Shulem]

The editors learned from Kerry Muhlestein (not Gee) one photo was upside down but it was already too late, so it was noted on an errata sheet included with the volume. Gee is full of bs as usual.

When God translated Egyptian texts through Joseph Smith's eyes the direction or orientation of the text had no bearing whatsoever because what got translated got translated by God. It didn't matter if the text was right-side up or upside down because God translated Egyptian according to his own will.

[_Philo Sofee]

Shulem
When God translated Egyptian texts through Joseph Smith's eyes the direction or orientation of the text had no bearing whatsoever because what got translated got translated by God. It didn't matter if the text was right-side up or upside down because God translated Egyptian according to his own will.

God doesn't have a Ph.d in Egyptology from any credible university, so his translation may not reflect current scholarship with "real" Ph.d's. Better to stick to the real scholars...

[_empirious]

More trashing of the editors of the Abraham JSP book.

ETA: Lindsay in the comments section of Gee's review.

Jeff Lindsay on August 23, 2019 at 9:12 pm said:
“It is regretful that although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints counts several faithful Egyptologists among its membership, the editors deliberately chose not to involve them in any serious way.”

That’s an amazing admission, especially when coupled with Hauglid’s denouncement of Gee and “abhorrent” apologetics on Facebook. I have reason to believe that some key people with the JSP Project believed that our LDS Egyptologists were given every chance to be closely involved with this project, and yet it seems that Dr. Gee at least feels that he was deliberately excluded.

I’m more comfortable assuming the flaws occurred in good faith, guided perhaps by personal confusion and perhaps by too much closeness to hostile critics of the Book of Abraham, resulting in an unjustified but socially acceptable bias against Nibley et al. and leading to an unfounded sense of confidence in the perspectives the editors developed over time. Assume good faith, but recognize that we still have a problem in need of correction.

Some people have had a crisis of faith over the issues created with this volume and the summaries made by the editors.

Lindsay published a scathing review of the editors a few weeks ago.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-precious-resource-with-some-gaps/

As noted above the two editors were merely the lead editors in front of a much larger team of editors who carefully reviewed the volume at every step of the way to publication.