138 replies to this topic

[The Dude]

Off topic... never mind.  

Edited by The Dude, 06 June 2007 - 05:03 PM.

[Hawkmoon]

I think people are missing the point (and opportunity) of the challenge, at least to my mind.

First, he states, "I am regularly vilified as incompetent by people who in some cases have not attended college, and usually masquerade behind pseudonyms. Yet, when I read their responses, I wonder about the competence of these critics." This is a valid point-- if you are going to challenge his competence (read: an expert) you should at least show that you have the requisite skills to actually challenge said competence. So far, no one has taken this challenge up.

Secondly, he states, "So I am willing for the next month to conduct a little test of the basic Egyptological skills needed for an intelligent discussion of the Joseph Smith Papyri." It would seem that this would prove a boon to critics of John Gee since, by default, if you prove your competence you will have undermined his general point. Furthermore, some very “intelligent discussion” may actually come from it. Again—no one seems to have taken this challenge up.

One, last thing I do not believe what is at issue here is whether a layman should be able to discuss, criticize or delve into these questions; but rather, whether a layman has the standing to make declarations of fact concerning the scholarship, intelligence and competence of an professional without having the necessary skill-set to pass such a judgment. Unfortunately, this happens all too often on this board.

Edited by Hawkmoon, 06 June 2007 - 04:54 PM.

[karl61]

calmoriah, on Jun 6 2007, 03:44 PM, said:

The problem with lack of training is that such may prevent an individual from being aware of the interrelationships and other subtle implications of various areas of the discipline, how they influence each other etc.

I see this a lot in the use of statistics.  There are some who think that 'raw data' is somehow appropriate for use even if the rest of the study is problematic, but often this isn't so due to the theory, assumptions, methodological practices, etc. colouring how the data was collected, even how it is defined which may be different than what the untrained individual understands it to be.

Demonstrating a certain level of knowledge in a area demonstrates as well a likely familiarity with how things are approached in a discipline, the particular jargon and other things that may cause confusion when discussions occur between an expert and someone unaware of these aspects.

It seems to me that familiarity with not only the arguments, but with the general nature of what it being argued about (and how it may be typical or atypical, etc.) is important to this discussion.  This test seems to me to be a good way to evaluate one's breadth of knowledge in this area so that then particular issues can be addressed assuming a common background.

I can certainly understand Dr. Gee's desire to make an effective use of his time and save trouble by requiring a certain level of expertise before opening the dialogue.








From karl61

I'm way out my league: I could likely find Egypt on a map but that's it.

But I will say this: for over a decade I was in investigator and wrote likely a thousand reports to judges regarding famlies and things going on inside the home. The court was Dependency Court in Calif or child abuse cases.  One of things that I saw was lawyers coming in that knew family law but nothing about the the law that was addressed in the court. Even though they went to law school and passed the bar they really did a dis service by taking the case as a private attorney instead of having the family take a court appointed counselor who knew the judge and knew dependency law. There were certain cases just as important as miranda, that you needed to know. It was clear that they were lost when things started. The best lawyers were the ones that sat in the court room each day, who had been there for years. A lot of the time it's the same facts but a different face. They know how the judge is going to rule on these facts. But then each court was different. One judge might sustain one petition where another one might just dismiss it and say the Department didn't meet the burdon of proof. my thoughts.

Edited by karl61, 06 June 2007 - 05:13 PM.

[aka]

On another thread I had inquired about Dr. Gees' schedule for publication of a follow-on to his book A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri.  In the introduction to that book, published in 2000, Dr. Gee said that he is "currently preparing a larger study that will provide a fuller discussion" (of the Papyri issues) "with references."

I'm looking forward very much to reading the study/book when it is released.

I assume Dr. Gee is monitoring this thread and so perhaps could provide us a status report.

Thank you.

[cksalmon]

juliann, on Jun 6 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

BTW...what aspects of a graduate course on the NT do you think would not require knowledge of Greek?  Now I'm really curious.

Hi Juliann--

I didn't intend to suggest that there were any aspects of an NT graduate course that would not reasonably  require knowledge of Greek, so I'm not sure how to answer.

I wrote:

Quote

And discussing non-translational aspects of NT does not require that one be able to translate Greek.

In the same way that non-translators of Greek can intelligently discuss non-translational aspects of NT, non-translators of Egyptian can intelligently discuss non-translational aspects of JSP/BoA. (I wouldn't presume to invoke a Greek translational test before I deigned to read, consider, or discuss comments about some non-translational aspect of NT by non-translators of Greek here. But, perhaps I have the luxury of that laxity as I don't hold a terminal degree in the Greek language. I don't consider myself credentialed enough to be dismissive, I suppose.)

My point was that your analogy's removal to the classrooms of higher education was inappropriate to the situation "on the ground" here at MADB (specifically with regard to a discussion of the missing scroll hypothesis).

CKS

Edited by cksalmon, 06 June 2007 - 05:29 PM.

[Dan Vogel]

Professor Gee,

Of what relevance could translating Egyptian be to the study of early Mormon history? JS didn't translate Egyptian. You have proposed that the text he translated is missing. So no matter how good you are at translating Egyptian, it won't help you. You don't even dispute that the characters in the left margins of the translation papers are incorrectly translated, although you question the relationship between the two. And for that theory your knowledge of Egyptian is useless. What about JS's translation or interpretation of the characters on the facsimiles? Does your expertise in Egyptian help you explain your way out of that? Hardly. No one (not even Noel, I believe) has questioned your ability to translate Egyptian. What is at issue is your theories about how the JS Egyptian papyri connect with the Book of Abraham. Basically, your idea that the missing papyri contain the missing text of Abraham is wishful thinking, the fallacy of possible proof, and downright silly, according to your mentor. The question I have for you is: are you an Egyptologist who happens to be interested in the Book of Abraham, or are you an apologist who became an Egyptologist so that you could browbeat your opponents with irrelevant feats of erudition?

If there has been ad hominal attacks, I don't approve of it; but most of the points made by the critics involve the non-technical aspects of the debate. I hope you realize that your test, if taken seriously, would apply to many of your defenders as well, some of whom go into vast detail on things Egyptian. You quote Nibley, but how bright was his light and long his rope when he tried to explore the Egyptian caverns? And was his wild theories about JS's scribes trying to learn Egyptian by working backwards from JS's translation beyond criticism from all except the Egyptologist?

[charity]

The Dude, on Jun 6 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

The point?  To question the competence of a critic and put off engaging that person's specific criticism.
  Just a guess.

I can see that at least one person admits he is not qualified to criticize, but wants to import someone else's criticism.

[The Dude]

charity, on Jun 6 2007, 05:35 PM, said:

I can see that at least one person admits he is not qualified to criticize, but wants to import someone else's criticism.

Um... no.  I just want to see Gee answer the criticism instead of hiding behind a written exam.

Edited by The Dude, 06 June 2007 - 06:03 PM.

[Tarski]

juliann, on Jun 6 2007, 04:13 PM, said:

So you would be just as satisfied with a professor teaching the NT who didn't know a lick of Greek...after all, one can talk about elements that aren't "translational" and just skip  the words in the  text you are talking about.....wow.

I knew more Greek than my NT professor at BYU by his own assessment. It wasn't much but I had him beat. What should we make of that?

Edited by Tarski, 06 June 2007 - 07:44 PM.

[calmoriah]

Hawkmoon, on Jun 6 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

One, last thing I do not believe what is at issue here is whether a layman should be able to discuss, criticize or delve into these questions; but rather, whether a layman has the standing to make declarations of fact concerning the scholarship, intelligence and competence of an professional without having the necessary skill-set to pass such a judgment. Unfortunately, this happens all too often on this board.

This is my problem with what happens on the board and elsewhere; it's not the discussion or even criticism of the topic, it's how the evaluation of the experts appears to be done.  A footnote is found to be less than someone has assumed it to mean, the scholar doesn't take the alleged problem with one footnote as seriously as the lay critic does and suddenly the scholar is being represented as a dishonest and untrustworthy, etc.  Other variations on this theme seem to be appearing all the time.

[calmoriah]

Quote

The best lawyers were the ones that sat in the court room each day, who had been there for years. A lot of the time it's the same facts but a different face. They know how the judge is going to rule on these facts. But then each court was different.

I believe it's this way in any field, even knowing personalities and their history, their pet projects and theories, etc. will make you more effective in working in that field.

[calmoriah]

Quote

your idea that the missing papyri contain the missing text of Abraham is wishful thinking

If someone doesn't know anything about papyri, how is this a credible conclusion?  Wouldn't making a truly educated guess, a theory about the possible currently unknown contents depend on a knowledge of the contents of other papyri and an ability to examine the likelihood of what we currently have being linked with something that related to Abraham?

[grego]

I think certain things are helpful but not necessarily necessary when discussing a matter.  It's a question of what bears in the matter.  

Recently, some critics have talked about the papyri themselves, not the translation, and come to conclusions that apologists have pointed out to be under-educated and unnecessarily drawn.  

Perhaps another list of questions, on the papyri--which is what most of the discussion has been on--would be better for the situation, (edit:) than questions on translation.  

On the other hand, to hear people like ** and ** sputter their stuff, when I could post a few of their past posts that show them to be quite hypocritical--with ** lying/ libelous misrepresentation, and ** completely unwilling to engage opposing criticism and also being misleading and maybe more, it hardly shows well for these critics to criticize like this.

Edited by grego, 06 June 2007 - 08:44 PM.

[cksalmon]

grego, on Jun 6 2007, 08:28 PM, said:

I think certain things are helpful but not necessarily necessary when discussing a matter.  It's a question of what bears in the matter.  

Recently, some critics have talked about the papyri themselves, not the translation, and come to conclusions that apologists have pointed out to be under-educated and unnecessarily drawn.  

Hi Grego--

I think you're attempting to be tactful here. But, I really don't know what exactly it would mean for a critic (or, alternatively, an apologist) to be "pointed out to be under-educated and unnecessarily drawn."

But, I would like to know about ** doing ** with regard to ** re **.

I wasn't able to parse that, precisely. Though, I do get that you don't agree with critics of BoM, I think.  

Best.

**

Edited by cksalmon, 06 June 2007 - 08:40 PM.

[Dan Vogel]

calmoriah, on Jun 6 2007, 08:04 PM, said:

If someone doesn't know anything about papyri, how is this a credible conclusion?  Wouldn't making a truly educated guess, a theory about the possible currently unknown contents depend on a knowledge of the contents of other papyri and an ability to examine the likelihood of what we currently have being linked with something that related to Abraham?

How does one gauge the likelihood of the existence of a one-of-a-kind document?

[grego]

IOW, some critics have come to conclusions that, had they known more about the issue, they probably wouldn't have suggested as being so concluded.

Yes, I have not named ** and ** , but they are posters and might recognize my interactions with them on certain past threads where these issues came up and I specifically pointed them out; hopefully they will remember these times themselves, and will come to the conclusion that hey, maybe I should be a little better.

-=-=-=

Quote

Though, I do get that you don't agree with critics of BoM, I think.

Depends on the arguments and reasoning.  I disagree with most critics of the BoM; yet I often disagree more strongly with Sorensen and Gardner--two staunch BoM "scholars", for example.

Edited by grego, 06 June 2007 - 08:47 PM.

[Jerubaal]

aka, on Jun 6 2007, 04:04 PM, said:

On another thread I had inquired about Dr. Gees' schedule for publication of a follow-on to his book A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri.  In the introduction to that book, published in 2000, Dr. Gee said that he is "currently preparing a larger study that will provide a fuller discussion" (of the Papyri issues) "with references."

I'm looking forward very much to reading the study/book when it is released.

I assume Dr. Gee is monitoring this thread and so perhaps could provide us a status report.

Thank you.

As I mentioned to you on that same thread, I personally asked Dr. Gee about that, and he said he has not been able to do so due to other things that have a monopoly on his time.

[calmoriah]

Dan Vogel, on Jun 6 2007, 09:38 PM, said:

How does one gauge the likelihood of the existence of a one-of-a-kind document?

What exactly do you mean by a "one-of-a-kind" document here?

[Chris Smith]

Hawkmoon, on Jun 6 2007, 04:51 PM, said:

First, he states, "I am regularly vilified as incompetent by people who in some cases have not attended college, and usually masquerade behind pseudonyms. Yet, when I read their responses, I wonder about the competence of these critics." This is a valid point-- if you are going to challenge his competence (read: an expert) you should at least show that you have the requisite skills to actually challenge said competence. So far, no one has taken this challenge up.

I do not challenge Gee's competence.  I challenge his conclusions and the way he presents them.  His book presents itself as a guide to basic information about the papyri, but it proceeds to state matters of opinion as if they were matters of fact.  It also omits or glazes over important pieces of information.  No indication is given that certain important claims made in the book are hotly contested by people on both sides of the faith-commitment fence.  I have identified a number of specific problems with the book during my posting history on this forum, so please don't tell me to "put up or shut up" (as one poster did earlier in the thread); I have most certainly "put up."  

I have already apologized for asserting that Gee "lied".  That statement was inappropriate.  However, I do think that my specific criticisms of Gee's book should either be answered or conceded; I don't see the bearing of the present "Challenge To Critics" on the validity of my criticisms.

As for my own credentials, I have a bachelor's degree in Biblical studies and am enrolled in a Christian History MA program.  I have read a lot on Mormon history and the Mormon scriptures, including a large quantity of material about the Book of Abraham.  I have studied photocopies of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers extensively on my own.  I am well-versed in the basics of historical methodology.  I have checked quite a few of John Gee's facts and footnotes, and have done a little browsing in books on Egyptian texts, religion and history.  I own Michael Rhodes' critical edition of the papyri and am familiar with its contents, and also have copies of all the other translations that have been made of the Book of Breathings.  I have demonstrated my grasp of the issues I've commented on, I think, on this and other forums.  So Gee hasn't called any "bluff" of mine.

I don't intend to take up Dr. Gee's challenge.  This is a transparent attempt to silence critics by holding them to outrageous standards defined by his own areas of interest and expertise (despite their irrelevance to the issue at hand).  In other words, he's making a power play: attempting to set himself up as the sole authoritative interpreter of what the historical record has to say about the Joseph Smith Papyri.  I will not be subjugated by Gee's Alabama literacy test.

-CK

Edited by CaliforniaKid, 06 June 2007 - 09:49 PM.

[Chaos]

CaliforniaKid, on Jun 6 2007, 11:47 PM, said:

  

I have already apologized for asserting that Gee "lied".  That statement was inappropriate.  However, I do think that my specific criticisms of Gee's book should either be answered or conceded; I don't see the bearing of the present "Challenge To Critics" on the validity of my criticisms.

Apologies are more convincing when you aren't continuing the slander on other boards.  

Quote

So Gee hasn't called any "bluff" of mine.

He sure has.  You took on Seyffarth and you now get to deal with Seyffarth's translations and standard translations if you want to be taken seriously while you badmouth somebody who can.
  

Quote

I don't intend to take up Dr. Gee's challenge.  This is a transparent attempt to silence critics by holding them to outrageous standards defined by his own areas of interest and expertise (despite their irrelevance to the issue at hand).  In other words, he's making a power play: attempting to set himself up as the sole authoritative interpreter of what the historical record has to say about the Joseph Smith Papyri.  I will not be subjugated by Gee's Alabama literacy test.

How convenient since you can't pass the literacy test that would be standard for anyone expecting to be involved in a corner of Egyptology.  We are fed up with people who claim to be in advanced Bible studies but pretend that knowing languages doesn't give anyone an edge.  Sure you can talk about the BOA without Egyptian but the minute the translation comes up the one who doesn't know the it can only parrot those who do.   That is when the badmouthing starts to get rid of the Mormon expert without further ado.  If you want to have a discussion here then show some respect until you know as much as those you are slandering.