John Gee Actually Talks About The Papyri - Oh My!

[juliann]

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

Here is the problem. You can say this until the cows come home. But Gee has offered textual evidence. At some point you really do have to discuss the evidence itself.

[Chris Smith]

Here is the problem. You can say this until the cows come home. But Gee has offered textual evidence. At some point you really do have to discuss the evidence itself.

I wasn't there. Perhaps you could rehash some of it for us.

[Chris Smith]

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do you not think it's deceptive to call an old book new, to claim that it's up to the minute when it's in fact 20 years out of date, and to remove or move the anti stuff so as to appear more Mormon friendly?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.

I still disagree, but I'm willing to let it rest.

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.

Thanks. I really do appreciate it.

-CK

[juliann]

I wasn't there. Perhaps you could rehash some of it for us.

You give conclusion after conclusion after conclusion...but you need conference attenders to tell you what you are supposed to talk about? Are you serious?

[William Schryver]

I wasn't there. Perhaps you could rehash some of it for us.

Well, I'm not in a position to "rehash" the evidence presented. Besides, I must address the more real and immediate problem of my ice-cream addiction by quickly going through the Wendy's drive-through and ordering two large chocolate Frostys before I "lay me down to sleep." But, I will say that (and this obviously precedes my ability to assess the quality of the evidence he presented) John showed numerous examples from extant papyri of sacrifice scenes -- some of which reference Abraham specifically in their context -- of lion couch scenes that center upon human sacrifice, both textually and via illustration. He also showed how the figure typically considered to be Anubis is not always, in fact, Anubis -- but uses the image of Anubis while describing a different character. Indeed, he showed many examples of idiosyncratic uses of the common funerary text vignettes -- most of which are specifically from the Ptolemaic era and even later. John has done his homework on this topic. And, despite the ease with which many have derided Gee's scholarship, the fact is that he has been presenting this stuff in the standard Egyptological journals for several years. It's just that he has not been presenting it in terms of LDS-related apologetics. He's been doing it purely from the standpoint of a typical Egyptologist; slowly and methodically building a body of evidence for his arguments in the appropriate venues.

Whatever those associated with LDS issues may say; whatever criticism Gee may be subject to in this small circle of people interested in BoA issues, the fact remains (and I viewed considerable evidence of it today) John Gee is hardly a "joke" in Egyptological circles. Quite to the contrary, he is widely published and widely respected. And, in time, I believe the man himself (and the majority of his claims vis-a-vis the Book of Abraham papyri) will ultimately be vindicated by the weight of scholarly consensus. Time will tell ...

Now ... I'm headed to Wendy's ...

[Chris Smith]

You give conclusion after conclusion after conclusion...but you need conference attenders to tell you what you are supposed to talk about? Are you serious?

I concluded that I'm fairly certain Egyptologists would still consider Joseph Smith's interpretation of facsimile 1 "off base". I stand by that conclusion. But I am interested in seeing Gee's evidence and conclusions complete with footnotes. Will they be available from FAIR soon? Thanks,

-CK

[Confidential Informant]

I concluded that I'm fairly certain Egyptologists would still consider Joseph Smith's interpretation of facsimile 1 "off base". I stand by that conclusion. But I am interested in seeing Gee's evidence and conclusions complete with footnotes. Will they be available from FAIR soon? Thanks,

-CK

I think you might be surprised in many ways. I spoke w/ Gee for about an hour after dinner and he showed me several examples where he has taken material gleened from the B of A used it in his regular Egyptological publications without placing in a specific mormon context and his colleges have accepted it without a blink.

In fact, he showed one instance where he used an exact phraseology from the B of A as a translation for another Egyptian text and no one object to that translation at all.

C.I.

[William Schryver]

I think you might be surprised in many ways. I spoke w/ Gee for about an hour after dinner and he showed me several examples where he has taken material gleened from the B of A used it in his regular Egyptological publications without placing in a specific mormon context and his colleges have accepted it without a blink.

In fact, he showed one instance where he used an exact phraseology from the B of A as a translation for another Egyptian text and no one object to that translation at all.

C.I.

Mmmmm ...

That's exactly what I saw today.

In the mouth of two or three witnesses ...

I will say this: John's no dummy. He's not trying to pawn off LDS apologetics in mainstream Egyptological journals. But piece by methodical piece he is building what will one day constitute a body of evidence to support LDS apologetic claims -- evidence that will have obtained indisputable credibility in the only arena that counts: the arena of his fellow professional Egyptologists.

[grego]

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.

Or how about doing something like writing a professor and telling them false information about other scholars, and never writing back with correct information after being called on it?

Does that make the person who did that an "outright fraud"??

Every time you bring up an unbased accusation, should I bring this up every time, too?

[Sargon]

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

Slow down there hotshot, Im one of the good guys.

[gtaggart]

Or how about doing something like writing a professor and telling them false information about other scholars, and never writing back with correct information after being called on it?

Does that make the person who did that an "outright fraud"??

Every time you bring up an unbased accusation, should I bring this up every time, too?

If you're talking about the Peterson said, Ritner said episode, you're far too early out of the gate. A recent thread on that one revealed that there could be a number of reasons why both Peterson (Gee) and Ritner could be right. I'll not rehash them here.

If you're not, CFR.

Finally, if I were really interested in pursuing this further--and I'm not, as I mentioned to CK--I'd ask you to support your unsupported claim that my "accusation"(???) was "unbased," whatever that means.

[urroner]

Slow down there hotshot, Im one of the good guys.

You?????? A good guy???????

[USU78]

I can't wait to see the details on this. Can somebody who attended tell me whether and to what extent and whether Gee has found Isis and/or Ma'at have received the same treatment as Anubis; i.e., that they are used to depict persons?

Merci!

[e=mc2]

Urroner quit pickin on poor Sargon.....

[urroner]

Urroner quit pickin on poor Sargon.....

I love whom I'm pickin on. Can't you just feel the love???

[Chris Smith]

Or how about doing something like writing a professor and telling them false information about other scholars, and never writing back with correct information after being called on it?

Does that make the person who did that an "outright fraud"??

Every time you bring up an unbased accusation, should I bring this up every time, too?

grego,

1) I would never intentionally do such a thing.

2) I don't recall anyone ever even accusing me of such a thing.

3) I only said Gee was an outright fraud by his own standards. You'll notice I said in the next few sentences that I think those standards are far too stringent, and that I'm willing to try to give Gee the benefit of the doubt.

4) The reason I brought this up is that gtaggart mentioned attacks on Gee's character. I was just trying to point out that it's easy to see the mote in the eyes of the antis, but not always as easy to see the mote in the eyes of one's favorite apologist.

Best,

-CK

[e=mc2]

To get back to the subject. Gee just told me during the break that Ptolemaic hieroglyphs are the most difficult to translate and understand. And the JS Papyri have Ptolemaic issues and language.

[Tarski]

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.

Felt ? Felt wrongly. (That's a euphemism for "thought incorrectly that he was receiving revelation")

[grego]

gtaggart,

I think you forgot to read the quote I was responding to. It was the second time someone had attacked someone else's "honesty" while they seemed to have not been very straight themself here on the boards.

-=-=-=

CK,

I might provide a link to the episode when I have time. You and I were both there.

However, it seems that if what you meant was only those two things, I understand-somewhat. Peer-reviewed scholarly Egyptian magazines don't seem to fit in there.

[juliann]

4) I was just trying to point out that it's easy to see the mote in the eyes of the antis, but not always as easy to see the mote in the eyes of one's favorite apologist.

I'm just trying to point out that armchair pontificating about what "Eqyptologists" say is easy, knowing what the scope of study is is not. And you don't...which is a tad odd for someone who wants to make judgments about those who do.

[David Waltz]

Hi Juliann,

You wrote:

>>I'm just trying to point out that armchair pontificating about what "Eqyptologists" say is easy, knowing what the scope of study is is not. And you don't...which is a tad odd for someone who wants to make judgments about those who do.>>

Me: Good point! It is intellectual suicide to attempt to try and make informed judgments on differing scholarly views concerning a subject in which knowledge of the original language is a necessity.

Grace and peace,

David

[noel00]

DELETED

Personal attacks are being deleted, no more scholar bashing to derail BoA threads.

[Daniel Peterson]

You've misrepresented the situation, noel00. In several ways.

One of them is that Dr. Gee is by no means an "apprentice" any more. And he hasn't been for a number of years now. Whatever Robert Ritner's views may be, the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Yale University -- not an altogether bad school, by most reckonings -- deemed him worthy of a doctorate in Egyptology. Unless I'm mistaken, Yale doesn't toss such degrees out like confetti.

There are other ways in which your comment fundamentally distorts reality, but, since I value my house and since certain people have recently managed to raise the threat of litigation, I think I'll not mention them here.

[selek]

DELETED

Personal attacks are being deleted, no more scholar bashing to derail BoA threads.

neol00,

You assume that Ritner is correct and that Gee is not. You also assume that the dispute is both black and white, and mathematical in it's precision.

In math, 2+2=4. It is very precise. Translations, interpretations, and analysis of ancient writings are no where near so precise. There is much in these fields that is subjective and much that is interpretive.

The dispute is not so binary as you are wont to beleive.

[noel00]

One does not need a PHd to see Ritner is right and Gee is wrong. He is sadly trying to rescue the BOA. I bet in 10 years there will no real evidence regarding the BOA just as years of dirt archaeology etc has not revealed any substantive evidence for the BOM.