Gee's Latest Book of Abraham Piece

[_Dr. Shades]

And perhaps especially Metcalfe, as he is in the process of writing a book about this mess.

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that. Poor Gee must be sweating bullets over the day when that finally hits the shelves!

[_CaliforniaKid]

Great comments, Scratch.

Those who wish to work with the originals will have to find ways to distance themselves from those efforts and the individuals involved in them

What this really means is that the Church will not allow anyone who is not a believer to do real work on the papyri. With this in mind, Gee's insistence that critics should do their homework first seems like a bit of a catch-22!

Whatever short-term tactical gains for anti-Mormonism these Egyptologists may have made, the net result is a long-term loss for a serious Egyptological examination of the material.

This is ironic, considering Dr. Gee is the man who single-handedly brought productive study of the Book of Abraham to a screeching halt with his missing papyrus theory!

If you decide you want to enter the debate, you ought to do some real homework.

If only Gee had taken his own advice before publishing his essay on the missing papyrus, he'd have saved us all a lot of trouble!

About one-third think that there is or was no connection between the Book of Abraham and any papyrus fragments.

I sort of doubt that one-third of church members belong to this group.

Perhaps I'm giving guilty of giving Gee the benefit of the doubt, but I figured he was quoting this in an ironic way.

I agree. It'd be a kick to write an article turning Gee's statements against him in a similar fashion. Lord knows he's provided plenty of material to work with, both here and elsewhere!

-Chris

[_NorthboundZax]

Was there any actual Egytology in Gee's paper?

[_moksha]

I am pretty certain that no one ever claimed, in a conference talk, that the truthfulness of the Church hinged on the Book of Abraham.

I think Dr. Gee's position, that the smoking papyri has been lost on the grassy knoll, is rather ingenious. This lost scroll can hold all the proof and all that other stuff therefore needs no defending. Besides which, only .03% of the members disagree with this analysis.

[_Trevor]

I think Dr. Gee's position, that the smoking papyri has been lost on the grassy knoll, is rather ingenious. This lost scroll can hold all the proof and all that other stuff therefore needs no defending. Besides which, only .03% of the members disagree with this analysis.

Ingenious indeed! It seems like this is becoming a trend--to construct the unfalsifiable thesis for any apologetic problem. It is as if they have to make sure important evidence seems to exist and also to remain out of reach. Hebrew DNA in the New World, Book of Abraham manuscript, what next?

A page from the book of Joe, who 'found' the plates and conveniently gave them up again. No evidence to examine there either!

[_Chap]

I am pretty certain that no one ever claimed, in a conference talk, that the truthfulness of the Church hinged on the Book of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham is canonised scripture. If it is fake, that is a big hole below the waterline.

The Book of Abraham was produced by the prophet Joseph Smith himself. If it is fake, he was either a liar or a deluded person. Not good ...

Of course you are an ironical little avian, and you know full well why nobody talks about the Book of Abraham very much nowadays ... poor old John Gee has been posted there in the Alamo, and the Mexicans are getting closer, while Davy Crockett et al are tiptoeing away over the sagebrush. leaving him all on his own with a missing scroll.

[_Trevor]

If only Gee had taken his own advice before publishing his essay on the missing papyrus, he'd have saved us all a lot of trouble!

Hey, CK, is there nothing new in this essay about the missing scroll theory? If not, where is 1) this argument set out in greater detail, and 2) effectively refuted by someone else?

[_solomarineris]

All in all, I found this piece by Gee to be an exercise in futility. He failed to deal with any of the more pertinent issues, and ultimately, the article functions primarily in the arena of rhetoric (rather than Egyptological scholarship). He is sitting here warning people that they had better back off, or else! The whole article seems like a long winded variation on that old childhood thread: "You better be nice, or I'm taking my ball home!"

Hey Scratch, cut the guy some slack, read the dislaimer first in bold letters;
The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
However boneheaded essay it might be, it is still his piece. I found it to be an entertaing read, as coherent as DCP's.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You cite this quote:

If you decide you want to enter the debate, you ought to do some real homework. There is a large bibliography, and there are dozens of theories to master, not to mention a large body of evidence. Many mistakes would not have been made had Egyptologists only known the literature better.

I think the quote should go without saying, although it often doesn't.

The trouble is, this is often used to try and discredit bonafide experts, such as Brent Metcalfe. (Hence my mention of juliann, who also used this argument when her interpretation of Bromley's cult/apostasy book was challenged.)

Ah. I see. I do believe, still, the quote is very good advice.

[_Chap]

You cite this quote:

If you decide you want to enter the debate, you ought to do some real homework. There is a large bibliography, and there are dozens of theories to master, not to mention a large body of evidence. Many mistakes would not have been made had Egyptologists only known the literature better.

I think the quote should go without saying, although it often doesn't.

The trouble is, this is often used to try and discredit bonafide experts, such as Brent Metcalfe. (Hence my mention of juliann, who also used this argument when her interpretation of Bromley's cult/apostasy book was challenged.)

Ah. I see. I do believe, still, the quote is very good advice.

No doubt those who wish to study the documents currently known as the Joseph Smith papyri from the Egyptological point of view should carefully read the relevant preceding Egyptological scholarship before expressing a view on the Egyptological questions involved. That is a no-brainer.

However, one does not need to hold a PhD to in Egyptology to see that the likelihood that the so-called 'Book of Abraham' is a translation of an ancient Egyptian text from the time of Abraham is very, very low indeed, and the likelihood that it has any connnection with the existing papyri as a source through any normal translation process is vanishingly small.

Joseph Smith did not know ancient Egyptian, but wanted people to think he did - this is clear both from the so-called 'Egyptian alphabet and grammar' he left us, and also from the amusing attempts to say things in Egyptian that he published in (If I recall correctly) 'Times and Seasons' with the evident aim of impressing the naïve with his linguistic gifts. The task is about as easy as deciding that "Wooloomoolo bazoomba' is not Latin: only the most elementary acquaintance with the target language is required, and it is obvious that Smith did not even have that.

OK, somewhere there may (just may) be a missing papyrus that will reveal to Egyptologists that the Book of Abraham really was once written out in hieroglyphics. Then the Egyptology will become really relevant in a technical way to the Book of Abraham problem, such as it is, and we shall see discussions of the new text far outside the ambit of LDS studies. But for the moment (and probably for ever after too), the important question - did Joseph Smith make the thing up, or is it genuine - does not require Egyptological learning of a high degree. To claim otherwise is mere obfuscation.

One really can see why some intelligent LDS seems to be going for the theory that in some way their deity channeled the Book of Abraham to Smith while Smith himself though he was translating the papyrus from Egyptian. That is how bad things are getting ... no homework needed to see why ...