John Gee Actually Talks About The Papyri - Oh My!

[e=mc2]

I'm just letting you know that Gee is at it again, obfuscating matters on the papyri........ this ought to make the critics happy.

[Olavarria]

Hey, try to sum up his arguments

[e=mc2]

He is discussing the eyewitness descriptions of the rolls of papyrus. There were at least two rolls, and some fragments with astronomical data on them.

There is an actual mathematical formula that Egyptologists have developed in order to calculate what amount of rolls of papyrus are missing. Gee just showed that some rolls of the fragments we now have may be missing as much as 12 feet.

[Chris Smith]

He is discussing the eyewitness descriptions of the rolls of papyrus. There were at least two rolls, and some fragments with astronomical data on them.

There is an actual mathematical formula that Egyptologists have developed in order to calculate what amount of rolls of papyrus are missing. Gee just showed that some rolls of the fragments we now have may be missing as much as 12 feet.

Ack! I missed the mathematical formula argument! Lord Kerry, do be a good chap and get a paper copy with footnotes for your friend the chimp, pretty please? *bats eyelashes*

As for the eyewitness descriptions, boy would I like to be there for question-and-answer at the end. ;-)

[e=mc2]

He also showed that many Egyptian papyri which have illustrations of lion couches are about sacrificing, slaughtering of enemies, etc. We can't get away from the idea in the ancient Egyptian ideas. The implications, are, of course, that Joseph Smith was not off base in showing this idea of sacrifice, even though he felt it was illustrating that of Abraham.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ack! I missed the mathematical formula argument! Lord Kerry, do be a good chap and get a paper copy with footnotes for your friend the chimp, pretty please? *bats eyelashes*

As for the eyewitness descriptions, boy would I like to be there for question-and-answer at the end. ;-)

alas, if only we could persuede you to analyze biblical texts with such alacrity!

[e=mc2]

Who, me, or California Kid?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Me? CK.

[Chris Smith]

He also showed that many Egyptian papyri which have illustrations of lion couches are about sacrificing, slaughtering of enemies, etc.

He wouldn't happen to be drawing this conclusion based on Min's epithet "he who slaughters his enemies", which appears in one of the columns accompanying facs 1 and probably also appears near other lion couch scenes, would he? Because that epithet is not intrinsic to the meaning of the vignette.

Perhaps he is also referring to the sed festival, a ritual in which the king is divinized by being killed (by someone dressed like Anubis with a large knife) on a lion couch. (Or rather, a bull is probably substituted for him. A few authors think it was originally humans that were substituted for the king, but others have hotly disputed that conclusion.) It should be noted that in this case, the king sits on the altar in a sphinx-like position.

There are also alabaster altars that sometimes had lion couches inscribed. These were probably for sacrificing bulls, though some think they are merely offering-tables. Margaret Murray thinks the bulls are substituted for what were originally human victims. The evidence she cites, however, seems to depict the human victims bound and kneeling with a sword at their throat.

The BoB lion couch scene does not have the person on the couch kneeling or sitting like a sphinx. Moreover, it is much too late for human sacrifice to be there depicted. Even Abraham is too late for human sacrifice, which is mostly pre-dynastic/1st dynasty.

Human sacrifice, if I understand correctly, is still a matter of much debate among Egyptologists. But the ones who do advocate the idea, I think, would still strongly disagree that "Joseph Smith was not off base in showing this idea of sacrifice, even though he felt it was illustrating that of Abraham."

-CK

[Chris Smith]

alas, if only we could persuede you to analyze biblical texts with such alacrity!

If by this you mean "if only you could be persuaded to read biblical texts with such skepticism," you may rest assured that I do. I attend an evangelical church, but that doesn't mean I buy much of it. Heck, I have serious doubts that "Abraham" ever even existed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If by this you mean "if only you could be persuaded to read biblical texts with such skepticism," you may rest assured that I do. I attend an evangelical church, but that doesn't mean I buy much of it. Heck, I have serious doubts that "Abraham" ever even existed.

But oddly I haven't seen any of your recent threads talking about the problems you find with the Bible; only the Book of Abraham.

[Chris Smith]

This is a forum about Mormonism. If you want to hear about my beefs with the Bible you should have been in my Bib Studies classes a few years ago. I turned more than a few people's faces red.

I essentially reject the entire Old Testament as man-made. I think several books have interesting insights to offer, and I suppose it's possible that a few OT authors were "inspired" to some limited degree, but I'd just as well throw the whole thing out as a relic of a bygone age. I like the teachings of Jesus a lot, and I do tend to think of him as a divine or otherwise "special" figure, though I couldn't say so with any real certainty. The New Testament authors I accept insofar as I think their teachings reflect those of Jesus; in a number of cases I suspect they do not. I also have a special place in my heart for the writings of Zoroaster, Nanak, Kabir, Confucius, and (last but not least) Donald Miller.

If you'e ever read anything by John Hick, then you know roughly where I stand.

[Luigi]

Gee just showed that some rolls of the fragments we now have may be missing as much as 12 feet.

Wow, it's almost like the proverbial fish that got away-it gets longer every year(j/k).

[jerryp48]

I got the impression that Gee is rather disinterested in the whole BoA topic. Just my thoughts as I listened to him.

[Sargon]

I got the impression that Gee is rather disinterested in the whole BoA topic. Just my thoughts as I listened to him.

I've only seen pictures of him, but he certainly doesn't exude enthusiasm in his FARMS picture.

Sargon

[gtaggart]

I got the impression that Gee is rather disinterested in the whole BoA topic. Just my thoughts as I listened to him.

I doubt it, but it wouldn't surprise me if he gets tired of the dismissive comments from the likes of the Luigi the fisherman. Maybe s/he would like to enlighten us about his/her expertise in papyrology.

Then there's Sargon, willing to weigh in on Gee's interest in the BoA based on a photo on a Web site.

And let's not forget Gee's character. No, there's no lack of people on this and other boards ready to pronounce upon that as well.

[Chris Smith]

And let's not forget Gee's character. No, there's no lack of people on this and other boards ready to pronounce upon that as well.

You mean sort of like how Gee accused Larson of "deliberate deception" because IRR's name sounds scholarly and because the acknowledgements section was at the back of his book?

By those standards, Gee's an outright fraud. But I think we can give both Gee and Larson the benefit of the doubt, whatever their foibles. I certainly hope they are sincere in the things they argue for, even though I'm certain they've both made some fairly severe mistakes.

-CK

[maklelan]

I've only seen pictures of him, but he certainly doesn't exude enthusiasm in his FARMS picture.

Sargon

I see him often and ran into him at Wal-Mart the other day. He's just a mellow guy.

[EVOLVING]

well my ticket for the conference is not until tomorrow. I was wondering, did anyone record Egyptian rituals Dr. Gee went through as he attempted to resurrect the missing scroll theory.??. now that would be worth the price of admittance --- because, ummm... last I checked that theory was pretty well dead..

[gtaggart]

You mean sort of like how Gee accused Larson of "deliberate deception" because IRR's name sounds scholarly and because the acknowledgements section was at the back of his book?

By those standards, Gee's an outright fraud. But I think we can give both Gee and Larson the benefit of the doubt, whatever their foibles. I certainly hope they are sincere in the things they argue for, even though I'm certain they've both made some fairly severe mistakes.

-CK

Chris, you're better than that. Gee's claim of "deliberate deception" is against the publisher not Larson, and he made a reasonable case for why the "neutral-sounding" (rather than "scholarly" sounding)IRR published the book rather than its affiliate "Gospel Truth Ministeries. Furthermore, that discussion came after five paragraphs of other apparent problems, begining with Gee's initial claim--right there under the sub-head "A Deliberate Deception":

Contrary to the publisher's claims, the book is not new. It is a second edition with only minor changes from Charles M. Larson, . . . By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: The Testimony of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowmentâ??or a Latter-day Disaster? (Orem, UT: privately published by author, 1985). (emphasis supplied)

[Chris Smith]

Chris, you're better than that. Gee's claim of "deliberate deception" is against the publisher not Larson, and he made a reasonable case for why the "neutral-sounding" (rather than "scholarly" sounding)IRR published the book rather than its affiliate "Gospel Truth Ministeries. Furthermore, that discussion came after five paragraphs of other apparent problems, begining with Gee's initial claim--right there under the sub-head "A Deliberate Deception":

Gregory, you're better than that. The entire section is called "a deliberate deception", and it includes representations attributed to both the publisher and to Larson. He never actually comes out and says just what specifically he thinks is "a deliberate deception," but the subheading (which is near the beginning of the review) is frankly enough to paint the entire book with that brush.

-CK

[gtaggart]

Gregory, you're better than that. The entire section is called "a deliberate deception", and it includes representations attributed to both the publisher and to Larson. He never actually comes out and says just what specifically he thinks is "a deliberate deception," but the subheading (which is near the beginning of the review) is frankly enough to paint the entire book with that brush.

-CK

Correctomundo. The entire section--I mentioned that--is label "A Deliberate Deception, and the part you mentioned came at the end of that section, long after the five paragraphs that preceded it, said paragraphs containing 1. the fact that the book was the second, not the first edition of the book; that the book claims to have the first color photographs of the papyri, when that's not the case (all of which he attributes to IRR); 2. Gee argues that the book is largely a rehash of the arguments of others; 3. Gee lays out a brief outline of Larson's argument, then states that he will show that two of the premises and two of the conclusions are not true; 4. that the book does not contain "up to the minute" info on the papyri as the publishers claim (he does fault Larson a bit here); and finally 5. he gets to his claim that you mentioned (and got partly wrong) and for which, I think, he lays out a plausible argument: that the PUBLISHER pushed the acknowledgments to the back of the book and published under IRR rather than Gospel Truth because to do it the way LARSON had originally done it--you know, in the first edition--would alert the reader to the fact that this book had an anti-Mormon agenda.

So yes, you're right: Larson comes in for some of the blame, but the larger part is placed squarely on the publisher's shoulders. But you're wrong when you claim that the only support for Gee's subhead "A Deliberate Deception" are the facts in paragraph five of that section. And you're wrong again when you claim that Gee never identified what the deception was. Helly belly, the first two sentences immediately after the subhead identify one deception; then he disputes the publisher's claim that the book is "up to the minute," when in fact it ignores "almost all of the scholarly writing . . . in the last twenty years"; and finally, he points to the stuff you mentioned, refering to it as "disingenuousness."

In short, Gee seems to have supported his sub-heading quite well with evidence from Larson's book. Or do you not think it's deceptive to call an old book new, to claim that it's up to the minute when it's in fact 20 years out of date, and to remove or move the anti stuff so as to appear more Mormon friendly?

On second thought, don't answer that. I'm really not interested in arguing this further. And by the way, though I don't always agree with your assessments of the Book of Abraham/Kep/papyri, I almost always find your analysis thoughtful and interesting. FWIW.

[Deborah]

If the issue is whether the vignette went with the text of Abraham, I thought Gee made the point we don't know. We do not have the text only fragments of the vignettes. But the point in any case is that acceptance of the BOA is based on faith; as to the critics, they have no evidence to disprove the BOA is what it says and lack of evidence is not no evidence.

[William Schryver]

I got the impression that Gee is rather disinterested in the whole BoA topic. Just my thoughts as I listened to him.

All I know is that I sat right next to John all day long (except, of course, when he was speaking) and we spoke at length about issues related to the Book of Abraham topic. Without going into any detail about the nature of our conversations, John's continuing research, his publications in Egyptological venues that bear on the topic, and his manifest enthusiasm for the subject matter -- I can assure you that John is anything but "disinterested in the whole BoA topic."

I thought John's address was very well prepared and delivered. Naturally, it was geared towards a believing audience, and therefore repeatedly appealed to the "faith" aspect of believing in the Book of Abraham. But the points he made regarding the lengths of papyri rolls, and especially his numerous examples of very interesting aspects of extant copies of the Book of the Dead and the Book of Breathings -- and how those things relate to the BoA debate -- were very persuasive and compelling. Naturally, any argument that attempts to undergird the possibility of a missing text on a no-longer-extant portion of the papyri must deal with the question of why the KEPA documents use characters from the Sensen text. But the obvious answer to that query is that the producers of the KEPA documents simply made a mistake: they just did not know what Egyptian text was the origin of the BoA. They made an incorrect assumption that it was the text that followed Facsimile #1. John's several examples of illustrative vignettes being misplaced on Ptolemaic-era scrolls containing the Book of the Dead and the BoB effectively support the notion that the men in Kirtland may have suffered from a similar set of circumstances.

Anyway, it's late and I don't have time to go into any more detail. I hope to have John's full paper within a few days and then perhaps I will elaborate further. Overall, I think John acquitted himself very well. He also spent much time with me demonstrating (from the printed copies of his papers printed in Egyptological journals from around the globe) the specific instances where he is methodically demonstrating that many long-accepted translations of Egyptian texts are, in fact, incorrect. One particular example which would be of interest to our discussion is the actual meaning of the term "sensen." John has demonstrated, and it has been acknowledged by many of his peers, that "sensen" is incorrectly translated as "breathings." Although it can mean "breathings" in certain contexts, in the case of the text possessed by Horos (the correct spelling, by the way) it is more accurately translated as "fellowship." And the "Book of Breathings" would be more accurately entitled a "Recommendation for Fellowship." A temple recommend, if you will.

[selek]

He is discussing the eyewitness descriptions of the rolls of papyrus. There were at least two rolls, and some fragments with astronomical data on them.

There is an actual mathematical formula that Egyptologists have developed in order to calculate what amount of rolls of papyrus are missing. Gee just showed that some rolls of the fragments we now have may be missing as much as 12 feet.

IIRC, it was a total of 12 feet from one scroll, and a total of 60+ from the entire collection, but I may be mistaken as I was overawed by the sheer brainpower on display in that room.