Go John Gee! Go John Gee!

[juliann]

So no substantive response then.

What a surprise.

Regards,

Pahoran

Those that can, do...those that can't board nanny? CK is determined that this board be the model of civility and he is going to scold and withhold his companionship as punishment so we will comply. Meanwhile, he hangs out on one of the most ugly and obscene boards dedicated to bashing Mormons that I have seen. What a surprise indeed.

[Dale]

Just so we are all aware of it, guffaws from our friend Paul Osborne and his rejection of Nibley's materials is not a refutation. Just because he thinks the ancients should behave like we moderns do, does not mean Nibley is wrong.

I saw Paul link to persuasive material by Brent Metcalfe. Hugh Nibley never produced anything on the missing papyrus that persuasive. I think Hugh Nibley was wrong in trying to distance Joseph Smith from the EAG materials. He knew if Joseph Smith was associated with the EAG as a reverse engineering project, or translation material it would make him look bad. Without Joseph Smith clearly believing the Book of Abraham came from the missing papyrus he believed it came from the found papyrus.

I don't reject all of Hugh Nibley's points, but I don't find his specific arguments trying to lead away from the papyrus found in 1967 helpful. So I think Paul Osbourne whatever his errors in rejecting to much Nibley is on the right track with the catalyst revelation idea.

I will keep my mind slightly open to the missing papyrus theory. I am awaiting Brent Metcalfes publications on the issues. Then I will se how good those who disagree with him are able to defend themselves against his points.

[Hawkmoon]

I will keep my mind slightly open to the missing papyrus theory. I am awaiting Brent Metcalfes publications on the issues. Then I will se how good those who disagree with him are able to defend themselves against his points.

What are we in year 15 of that glorious day?

[Dale]

It takes money to publish book's. It takes a lot of time to prepare book's. One of his volumes I understand is quite technical, and large. I heard it may be an expensive volume to buy. I heard one speculate the cost might make it harder for him to get a publisher. Brent Metcalfe has shared what parts of his research he can. I am thinking that Signature Book's will, or atleast they should publish a cheaper series of essays on the Book of Abraham.

[e=mc2]

I am also looking very forward to getting the Metcalfe analysis and volume when he finishes it (I am wanting a personalized copy from Brent himself or I am going to have to hurt him real good....... )

NO the point CK is bringing up about Osborne's smirking against one of Nibley's arguments is the ancients dressing up as the Goddesses of Maat and Isis in order to acquire their powers and characteristics. Good ole brother Osborne is mortified that men went around in drag, as he puts it. Well I have articles showing that the most macho son of a gun on the planet, none other than HERCULES himself cross dressed as a woman, and what the rationale was........The ancients mores are not ours, any more than their knowledge, rituals, or ideas of what constituted truth or history or even philosophy or God as far as that goes. Dressing up as women is mere childs play compared to the real differences of them to us.

[Dale]

I don't object to John Gee's point based on Paul Osbourne's objection in and of itself. But considering Joseph Smith's translation of the facimilies wasn't conventional I believe they were merely a catalyst for his ideas. I don't think it's wrong of John Gee to point out that as one possibility, but confessing Joseph Smith as a redactor is another.

I am not sure we need the cross-dressing explanation that much. But a redactor would see the women in the article. A person not prejudiced towards cross-dressing would not object to adapting illustrations of women to illustrate men.

I like Kevin Barney's ancient redactor article. I can't recall the exact title. But Joseph Smith as a modern redactor, or ancient redactor idea resolves my concerns about Joseph's facimile explanations.

John's small book should have been thicker. I felt John Gee's small guide should have presented the Egyptological translation of the facimilies. Then it could have given the ways in which Egyptology might parallel Joseph's explanations. I have to run to critic's or others outside his book to get fuller information. It's almost as if the book was written to protect the reader from real world criticisms of the Book of Abraham based on the papyri. I doubt that was his intention. I think that might be FARMS intentions at times.

I know FARMs will eventually let John Gee have more time in writing to more fully explain his positions.

I figure when Breant Metcalfe get's his project or projects out FARMS Review of Book's will review it. I think it's good to be understanding and supportive of Brent in his projects. He hasn't promised immediate publication of whatever the state of preparation his manuscript is in. It may take him a few more years to publish if that's what time he needs.

[e=mc2]

I agree with a lot of your sentiments here Dale....... it is good that the two sides are apparently beginning to at least entertain the possibility of communication about all these materials.

[Dale]

I don't alway's agree with what I have read from Brent. I just happen to have some leanings towards his position in this area. Brian Hauglid seem's like he might be some competition for Brent Metcalfe. So even if I might be frustrated with John Gee I might have reason's to keep an open mind.

Perhap's John Gee will try and address some new issues at the FAIR conference.

[juliann]

It takes money to publish book's. It takes a lot of time to prepare book's. One of his volumes I understand is quite technical, and large. I heard it may be an expensive volume to buy. I heard one speculate the cost might make it harder for him to get a publisher. Brent Metcalfe has shared what parts of his research he can.

So you are willing to wait an unlimited time for this with no complaints and lots of excuses but expect the other side to produce on demand and proclaim they are losing the debate if they don't.

[e=mc2]

Hi Dale,

From my talks with Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin, and others I think Gee is really seriously busy doing what he does the best, that is, being a professional Egyptologist. He has been attending numerous conferences, writing hnumerous papers on various facets of the ancient Egyptians, etc., so time is a luxury. BUT what I find remarkably interesting is that he *is* doing what he is educated for, and is all the better for it. I am very excited that he is willing to give of his personal time to come and share some views of his research with us.

And, you may be correct, we may not need the cross dressing approach, but all Nibley was showing is that it did happen, and in ancient Egypt, not to mention Greece, and so that is a viable possibility. It's certainly not used as a proof, but it is apparently an actual occurrence, in a ritual setting because both male and female deities were involved in the ancient religion, exactly as we find in the Joseph Smith Book of Abraham facsimiles, and text. Paul Osborne may guffaw all he wants to, bless his heart, but that hardly furthers our information about the ancient situations. Nibley is vastly superior to Osborne in that respect.

[Olavarria]

Hi Dale,

From my talks with Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin, and others I think Gee is really seriously busy doing what he does the best, that is, being a professional Egyptologist. He has been attending numerous conferences, writing hnumerous papers on various facets of the ancient Egyptians, etc., so time is a luxury. BUT what I find remarkably interesting is that he *is* doing what he is educated for, and is all the better for it. I am very excited that he is willing to give of his personal time to come and share some views of his research with us.

And, you may be correct, we may not need the cross dressing approach, but all Nibley was showing is that it did happen, and in ancient Egypt, not to mention Greece, and so that is a viable possibility. It's certainly not used as a proof, but it is apparently an actual occurrence, in a ritual setting because both male and female deities were involved in the ancient religion, exactly as we find in the Joseph Smith Book of Abraham facsimiles, and text. Paul Osborne may guffaw all he wants to, bless his heart, but that hardly furthers our information about the ancient situations. Nibley is vastly superior to Osborne in that respect.

I dont think anyone has argued that fac3 depicts a cross dressing ritual in which modern egyptologists are fooled into thinking that it depicts actual gods.

The way I understood from the whole cross dressing thing is that it shows that men could be equated with female dieties, and so though not "proving" Joseph correct it shows that his translation has somewhat of an egyptian flavor. Becaus the anti's alaways say: "that figure is a woman, so Joseph was a real boob", as if he didnt see the pretty hip/waist ratio.

Ive dealt with this subject from a different angle.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...c=23098&hl=

[e=mc2]

I wish Dan Wutherspoon could finally get to my Sunstone lecture of almost two years ago - sigh......... I elaborated on this so extensively, and with such great sources, but I told him he could publish it, and so I can't really bring a lot of the materials about it out to show what I mean. I have HUNDREDS of Egyptological sources I used too! Ah for the love of patience......

[Dale]

So you are willing to wait an unlimited time for this with no complaints and lots of excuses but expect the other side to produce on demand and proclaim they are losing the debate if they don't.

What FAIR and FARMS has out looks misleading because Brent Metcalfe has already gotten out some of his research via the internet. I did not have to wait until his volume got out to see him make his points. Paul Osbourne references , and shows some of this research at his website. I havn't had to complain about Brent Metcalfe. So I believe I can be very patient with him over the time it takes him to get his book out.

The debate is being lost if you arn't interacting with some of the best of your critic's reviews of your stuff. When John Gee's small guide came out I found a review by Seymour Bloom of it. I felt his rejection of some of John Gee's points to be reasonable.

The losing debate happens when as a habit you make a few polemic points, and your critic's make unresponded to counter points. I became convinced some of these arguments look dumb.

I have had to get new good counter-arguments from John Gee second hand. An example would be John Gee uses a mathmatical formula to estimate the lenght of the roll that the Book of Breathings was on. If he is right the papyrus was far longer than Ritner suggested. Without the argument in writing from FAIR or him I am not even sure that I represented his point correctly.

[juliann]

From my talks with Dan Peterson, Bill Hamblin, and others I think Gee is really seriously busy doing what he does the best, that is, being a professional Egyptologist. He has been attending numerous conferences, writing hnumerous papers on various facets of the ancient Egyptians, etc., so time is a luxury. BUT what I find remarkably interesting is that he *is* doing what he is educated for, and is all the better for it.

He also is not shy about using some of this stuff in his professional world...something that the antis seem to think never happens even though they are not the least bit familiar with that professional world. But what's new about that.

I wish Dan Wutherspoon could finally get to my Sunstone lecture of almost two years ago - sigh

Get Brent and Dale on it. They don't put up with that kind of stuff and will publicly lecture him.

[juliann]

I havn't had to complain about Brent Metcalfe. So I believe I can be very patient with him over the time it takes him to get his book out.

Well sure you haven't had to complain...you agree with him. Yet you know he is not working from originals and just this message board has shown that there is a lot going on behind the scenes from the Mormons who are. It took the DSS decades to finally come out...those like you had a heyday until they did. But the point is...the only ones who didn't end up looking ridiculous were those who waited without jumping to all kinds of conclusions. So you can carry on but I can only shake my head in wonder at anyone who would do that when they know there is more coming and they know the people they agree with are not working with the real thing. You mention Gee's book (which not surprisingly is unsatisfactory to you). What books have Brent et.al, published on this? A list would be helpful.

[Dale]

Juliann here is the link to an article critical of John Gee's A Guide To The Joseph Smith Papyri. Tell me where I can turn to in the whole of John Gee's work to answer such criticisms? One of Seymour Bloom's valid criticisms say's "the reader should be warned that information, which does not agree with the LDS viewpoint, is often omitted or glossed over." This is my concern about his Guide and it's a valid concern. If Seymour Bloom is right John Gee is not right about his theory "that Egyptian characters were added to the left margins of the BoA manuscripts after the English text was written..." is possibly, or is wrong. Why shouldn't I have decided to agree with Brent Metcalfe over John Gee if the evidence goes against what John Gee is arguing?

http://www.lds-mormon.com/gee_abraham.shtml

I am in support of Brian Hauglid since I found out about his research. I am not aware of him writing a book, but I am open to being as patient with him as with Brent Metcalfe. I will be open to his arguments if persuasive enough to hold his own with Brent Metcalfes materials. I only know of this one LDS person working with the originals in-depth. Him and Brent Metcalfe went back and forth a little on the board about their differing conclusions and in private via e-mail. I don't know enough of Brian Hauglid's arguments to think he is right yet. He could be honestly misinterpreting what he has studied to favor the reverse engineering idea of the Book of Abraham manuscripts.

Who else is working with the documents?

[William Schryver]

Juliann here is the link to an article critical of John Gee's A Guide To The Joseph Smith Papyri. Tell me where I can turn to in the whole of John Gee's work to answer such criticisms? One of Seymour Bloom's valid criticisms say's "the reader should be warned that information, which does not agree with the LDS viewpoint, is often omitted or glossed over." This is my concern about his Guide and it's a valid concern. If Seymour Bloom is right John Gee is not right about his theory "that Egyptian characters were added to the left margins of the BoA manuscripts after the English text was written..." is possibly, or is wrong. Why shouldn't I have decided to agree with Brent Metcalfe over John Gee if the evidence goes against what John Gee is arguing?

http://www.lds-mormon.com/gee_abraham.shtml

I am in support of Brian Hauglid since I found out about his research. I am not aware of him writing a book, but I am open to being as patient with him as with Brent Metcalfe. I will be open to his arguments if persuasive enough to hold his own with Brent Metcalfes materials. I only know of this one LDS person working with the originals in-depth. Him and Brent Metcalfe went back and forth a little on the board about their differing conclusions and in private via e-mail. I don't know enough of Brian Hauglid's arguments to think he is right yet. He could be honestly misinterpreting what he has studied to favor the reverse engineering idea of the Book of Abraham manuscripts.

Who else is working with the documents?

I believe there are about a half dozen people at BYU who currently have access to the high-resolution scans of the KEP. But I believe Brian (and to a lesser extent Gee) are the only ones actively studying them. However, before too long it will be possible for anyone to examine high-res reproductions, then I'm sure we'll see an explosion of variant opinions.

The high-res scans (especially the several-megabyte .tif files) are, without a doubt, superior to the photos taken back in the early eighties. One thing the photos suffer from is that the brightness and contrast are out-of-whack. The originals are much more faded, and yet the darker ink of the emendations (and some of the Egyptian morphemes) shows up as having a greater contrast to the rest of the text -- whereas, in the photos, you cannot discern as well the differences between the initial text, the Egyptian, and what appear to be subsequent emendations.

As far as Gee's claim that at least some of the characters were written after the text, he is most certainly correct. Or, at least it is obvious in one glaring instance:

The problem with the vast majority of the Egyptian is that the morphemes aren't very long to begin with, so it's not possible to tell whether they were written before, during, or after the English text. But, in the example above (which comes from Phelps' Ms. #1) it's clear that the scribe was forced to move into the blank space of the preceding line's indentation in order to finish the morpheme.

However, I will say that I don't think it really matters at all if the characters were written before or afterwards -- at least from the standpoint of making any valuable apologetic argument. Why? Because the fact remains that the producers of the manuscripts obviously connected the Book of Breathings to the text of the Book of Abraham. The question of whether the characters were written before or after is only germane to the discussion of whether or not Mss. #2 and #3 are the result of Joseph Smith's original oral dictation of the BoA text. Of course, Metcalfe and others argue that they are dictation manuscripts. And, there is some evidence that suggests exactly that. However, I think that Hauglid et al (Gee, Skousen, etc.) will persuasively demonstrate that the Williams and Parrish manuscripts show much more evidence of being visual copies of an earlier document.

Additionally, there is a growing body of historical evidence that persuasively argues that at the least the first chapter and a half of the BoA was translated in July 1835 -- long before Parrish was a scribe. And I believe it will be satisfactorily demonstrated (contra Metcalfe) that the translation of Abr. 2:19 - 3:26 (and perhaps even more) occurred in late 1835, with Parrish serving as scribe. Then, the portion from chapter 4 to the end of what is currently found in the PoGP was probably received in March 1842, in Nauvoo.

Anyway, it won't be long before people will no longer be able to argue that the church is "hiding" the KEP. My opinion, after studying the manuscripts for several months, is that there is nothing in the KEP for believing LDS to be afraid of. They are quite fascinating, and they are extremely enigmatic in many respects -- I don't think anyone will ever be able to definitively explain what exactly they were trying to do back in Kirtland in 1835. But, speaking from the standpoint of a believing Latter-day Saint, the more people are able to study these documents, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

[Dan Vogel]

I'm only repeating what he posted in the very thread you are in. Why is it that so many are jumping in to speak for Brent only to become evasive and coy when asked for further information?

I know what Brent said here, but I you seemed to go beyond what was written to a world of meanings unaccessible to me.

Brent: "Unless John Geeâ??s approach to the BoAbr has fundamentally matured, Iâ??m afraid that FAIR 2007 attendees will be treated to little more than an unbridled bluster of sophistic hubris. Iâ??m actually tempted to attend the session since I sincerely doubt that FAIR organizers will broadcast Geeâ??s presentation live via the Internet much less post a (reliable) transcript of his presentation on the FAIR Web site in a timely manner."

You: Brent has made the accusation that FAIR produced an "unreliable" paper by Gee. I would like the details on that. Has Brent transcribed the audio himself and found gross errors? What are they? Why doesn't he inform instead of accuse so it can be corrected if that is the case?

I don't follow. Did you mean Hauglid? I said he was disappointed with the outcome of Hauglid's paper, which he wanted posted exactly as presented, not a cleaned up version. I was guessing. What Brent said above is all he is responsible for. I think by "reliable" he means accurate and full. It doesn't have to be an accusation, just a request.

[Dale]

William I think your comments help me to understand where things are at the moment.

I am not sure it's reasonable to argue Joseph Smith wasn't one of the producers of the manuscript.

[e=mc2]

Just for kicks and giggles, I went ahead and looked into one of Nibleyâ??s sources, Erik Hornung, Der Eine und die Vielen (The One and the Many, I have the English translation Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt, Cornell University Press paperback, 1996) wherein Nibley noted that Hornung (sincerely one of the very FINEST Egyptologists!) said that since there is no difference in the ancient Egyptian thought process of no real identification nor of fusion, â??the god could with impunity take any form or sex he pleased without disturbing anyone.â? Now I looked into the text of Hornung myself and here is what I find. â??Because it [the problem of relation between the gods] does not imply identity or fusion of the gods involved, it can combine deities who have different forms and even, on occasion, ones of opposite sex.â? (p. 96-97). The footnote reveals that the combinations of male and female gods and goddesses occurred such as Neith-Osiris, Mut-Min, Horus-Sothis, â??thus the unusual type of combination is not restricted to androgynous deities such as Neith.â?

This is not the normal or regular occurrence, and Nibley nowhere says it was. It is unusual, but it is apparently understood by the Prophet to have occurred, that is, this combining different sexes, not to mention different genres, that is human and divine. Nibley isnâ??t misusing Hornung, and Hornung is proclaiming that sexes were combined, that is mixed. The point is that the powers, the offices and assignments of the deities were taken on by imitating them, or else directly fusing with them, my very evidence I presented at Sunstone 2 years ago. Paul Osborne says Nibley messed up a source. I have found one directly bearing on this issue to have been used very appropriately and entirely within the parameters that Nibley layed out in his argument in his book Abraham in Egypt.

[Chris Smith]

Just for kicks and giggles, I went ahead and looked into one of Nibleyâ??s sources, Erik Hornung, Der Eine und die Vielen (The One and the Many, I have the English translation Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt, Cornell University Press paperback, 1996) wherein Nibley noted that Hornung (sincerely one of the very FINEST Egyptologists!) said that since there is no difference in the ancient Egyptian thought process of no real identification nor of fusion, â??the god could with impunity take any form or sex he pleased without disturbing anyone.â? Now I looked into the text of Hornung myself and here is what I find. â??Because it [the problem of relation between the gods] does not imply identity or fusion of the gods involved, it can combine deities who have different forms and even, on occasion, ones of opposite sex.â? (p. 96-97). The footnote reveals that the combinations of male and female gods and goddesses occurred such as Neith-Osiris, Mut-Min, Horus-Sothis, â??thus the unusual type of combination is not restricted to androgynous deities such as Neith.â?

This is not the normal or regular occurrence, and Nibley nowhere says it was. It is unusual, but it is apparently understood by the Prophet to have occurred, that is, this combining different sexes, not to mention different genres, that is human and divine. Nibley isnâ??t misusing Hornung, and Hornung is proclaiming that sexes were combined, that is mixed. The point is that the powers, the offices and assignments of the deities were taken on by imitating them, or else directly fusing with them, my very evidence I presented at Sunstone 2 years ago. Paul Osborne says Nibley messed up a source. I have found one directly bearing on this issue to have been used very appropriately and entirely within the parameters that Nibley layed out in his argument in his book Abraham in Egypt.

Kerry,

Saying that deities in ancient Egypt could be fused or mixed regardless of gender-- or even saying that female deities could be iconographically mixed with a pharaoh of the opposite gender-- is a far cry from demonstrating that such an explanation is possible in the case of facsimile 3. I have several questions about such an explanation:

1) Pharaohs can be iconographically mixed with deities, but can princes?

2) It's one thing for an artist to depict pharaoh wearing an Isis hat. It's quite another for him/her to depict pharaoh (or in this case a prince) as Isis. Is there precedent for this?

3) The labels above the heads of the figures seem to me to present an intractable problem for any such hypothesis. How do you get around this?

-CK

[e=mc2]

I got around each and every point in my blasted Sunstone article that unfortunately Wutherspoon has not chosen to publish yet. SIGH....... I mean ***SIGH***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good heck, this is precisely the issues I dealt with and with Egyptological sources! I need to call Wutherspoon I can see that. I ask you to be a wee bit patient for a bit more, you have *great* questions, and logical issues. I have answers, but I have promised Sunstone the write up.

[e=mc2]

Oh and uh CK, I just read Kevin Graham's analysis of this thread over on Shades board, and he leaves a lot out, and reads way too much into things. His arguments and presentation of evidence is crooked, don't hang around him too much, I rather like you a lot, and wouldn't want his weird way of twisting things to effect your abilities to reason, think, and understand. I have become more and more disappointed with his silliness. At one time that man could really carry a whallop, now all he carries is a whine. Sad really.

[Chris Smith]

Any chance you might email it to me?

[Dale]

I don't think it fair to reject everything Hugh Nibley wrote. I only question some things he wrote on the papyrus issue/Kirtland Papers, but he wrote a lot of good on the Book of Abraham also. I enjoy a lot of the content of John Gee's small guide.

One possibility is Joseph Smith saw names above the figures and assumed they came from the characters. Under the catalyst revelation idea as I accept it the Lord simply told Joseph Smith a story adapting Egyptian scenes unrelated to actual events. Joseph Smith would have noticed the the conflict but rather than question the Lord he simply assumed one was the literal translation of the other. The process of tranlation in D.&C. 9:7-9 requires Joseph Smith Jr. to pay attention to feelings of "stupor of thought." If he had a testimony of the story, but felt apathetic towards the translation at times he never shared his doubts.

Did God lie to Joseph Smith Jr.? I am not sure it's a lie to give him a developing true story as long as he didn't directly tell him his translation was a translation. Joseph Smith assuming both texts must be related may have been his not totally applying his discernment skill's. Perhap's the Lord felt the translation task might help Joseph Smith with his translation skill's if he learned to pay attention to his feelings of "stupor of thought."

The Book of Breathings being thought the source for the Book of Abraham may have been the Lord's way of leaving Joseph Smith a hint. It would have bothered Joseph Smith and the scribes that paragraph's of text could be related to so few characters. But Joseph Smith being moved by inspiration to produce the Book of Abraham overly trusted his feelings. Because he ignored his doubts he never took another direction with the papyrus that may have led to a closer to an Egyptological translation.

The problem is I cannot know Joseph Smith wasn't just being a fraud in producing the Book of Abraham. The ways in which Joseph Smith's ideas parallel Egyptology has been well demonstrated. The main text has support in old Abrahamic lore. So I am open to the story being possibly true even if the story is, and never was a translation of any part of the whole payrus.