John Gee Actually Talks About The Papyri - Oh My!

[selek]

One does not need a PHd to see Ritner is right and Gee is wrong.

Perhaps. Perhaps Not. I'm beginning to think you need a PhD to PROVE it, however.

To me, the most damning thing Gee pointed out in his presentation is that for all the critics are claiming Ritner is right and Gee is wrong- Gee hasn't published a monograph for them to critique.

There's really nothing for the detractors to compare- which means most of the partisanship and hostility is coming from those who don't know what they're talking about.

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.

You are at liberty to do so. What are your stakes?

[Daniel Peterson]

One does not need a PHd to see Ritner is right and Gee is wrong.

Egyptology is just one of those fields where no real training or expertise is required. Intuition will do. Everybody's opinion is created equal. The fact that Gee's alma mater -- New Haven Community College, or whatever it's called -- offers a so-called "doctorate" in such a silly field is just hilarious.

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.

I bet in ten years your opinion will be much the same, and just as well grounded, as it is today. Unless, that is, you've gone on to postgraduate study in the spirit world.

[noel00]

My opinion will be the same because those who are the experts now will still have the same view of the BOM and BOA historicity. I can't understand how someone with your background (Islam) can still maintain the BOA is valid. All that dirt work in Mesoamerica has not turned up anything and we even have one of those who was involved with the BYUNWAF having doubts about the BOM (Ray Matheny).

[Daniel Peterson]

My opinion will be the same because those who are the experts now will still have the same view of the BOM and BOA historicity.

I won't ask how you know that, but I will point out that, by "the experts," you mean those who agree with you.

Although Yale University thinks John Gee a competent scholar (or they wouldn't have given him a Yale University doctorate), The noel00 University of Egyptology doesn't. This presents me with no particular difficulty. I can live with it.

I can't understand how someone with your background (Islam) can still maintain the BOA is valid.

I'm not sure how your failure to understand my position is supposed to prove that there's something problematic about it.

All that dirt work in Mesoamerica has not turned up anything and we even have one of those who was involved with the BYUNWAF having doubts about the BOM (Ray Matheny).

Ray Matheny's views are somewhat more complex, I think, than you realize. Anyway, I don't see why I have to bow down before Ray Matheny in any event. John Clark, director of NWAF, is an outspoken believer. Presumably, you're just as qualified to prefer Matheny over Clark as you are to pronounce Ritner the victor over Gee.

[William Schryver]

noel00:

One does not need a PHd to see Ritner is right and Gee is wrong.

About what? Please specify, and then weâ??ll see if we can determine whether or not your statement is factual.

He is sadly trying to rescue the BOA.

Rescue the Book of Abraham from what, pray tell? Please specify, and then weâ??ll see if we can determine whether or not your statement is factual.

I bet in 10 years there will no real evidence regarding the BOA â?¦

What do you mean by â??real evidence regarding the BoA?â? What are you talking about? Are you referring to evidence that the BoA exists? Or that it exhibits compelling signs of being a document of ancient origin? Please specify, and then weâ??ll see if we can determine whether or not your statement is factual.

You come across as little more than a completely uninformed cheerleader waving your pompoms from the sidelines. You studiously avoid any discussion of the details of this issue - presumably because you are entirely ill-equipped to enter into a discussion of such things. Hence you pop in every so often and throw out these condemnatory drive-by statements that are nothing more than vague generalities, but you will never stick around long enough for anyone to assess whether or not you really have any clue as to the actual topic at hand.

So, once again, let us see some specifics in your unfocused, facile criticisms, otherwise we will continue to regard you as the inconsequential voice you appear to be.

[noel00]

I have watched the debate between you and others like CK as well as KG comments about your efforts.I notice when someone gets the better of you, you get rather testy. Was there really a longer papyri attached to the BOB and Fac 1? So you need to desparately to find some evidence for this possibility and at the same time separate Smith from the KEP activity as the symbols used there are from the BOB. If there was another longer piece of papyri containing the BOA, why didn't the scribes practice their "re-engineering" using symbols from that "longer" piece?

[charity]

I have watched the debate between you and others like CK as well as KG comments about your efforts.I notice when someone gets the better of you, you get rather testy. Was there really a longer papyri attached to the BOB and Fac 1? So you need to desparately to find some evidence for this possibility and at the same time separate Smith from the KEP activity as the symbols used there are from the BOB. If there was another longer piece of papyri containing the BOA, why didn't the scribes practice their "re-engineering" using symbols from that "longer" piece?

I have noticed that whenever pinned to the wall by a demand for sources or specifics, the standard whine becomes a little tantrum about others getting testy.

Make your specifics statements, charges, assertins, cite your sources, and we all stay even tempered.

[urroner]

I wonder if noel is just a reincarnated SR? His tactic are very similar to SR's.

[William Schryver]

noel00:

I have watched the debate between you and others like CK as well as KG comments about your efforts.I notice when someone gets the better of you, you get rather testy.

And Iâ??ve seen your contributions to the various debates that have occurred. They demonstrate your paucity of real knowledge about the issues. Youâ??re a cheerleader â?? nothing more.

Was there really a longer papyri attached to the BOB and Fac 1?

Obviously there was. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how much longer the roll would have been. Professor Gee has recently demonstrated, using the tools of his professional expertise, that it was probably significantly longer. When faced with a difference of opinion on a matter of Egyptology, I tend to side with the Egyptologist who is an expert in such things.

So you need to desparately to find some evidence for this possibility â?¦

There is considerable evidence for the claims which Dr. Gee has made. Perhaps when his paper is published you would like to dispute that evidence with counter-evidence of your own. I will look forward to that development with much anticipation.

â?¦ and at the same time separate Smith from the KEP activity as the symbols used there are from the BOB.

No one is currently attempting to â??separate Smithâ? from anything of the sort. Apparently you have difficulty keeping up with the discussion. Youâ??ve fallen woefully behind and should perhaps spend some time doing your homework until you can contribute substantively to the topic.

If there was another longer piece of papyri containing the BOA, why didn't the scribes practice their "re-engineering" using symbols from that "longer" piece?

Again, apparently you have difficulty keeping abreast of the arguments as they develop. In terms of this particular question, several have suggested that neither Joseph Smith nor his scribes had any firm idea as to what Egyptian text was the source of the Book of Abraham. What part of that thesis do you find difficult to comprehend?

Now, I commend you for including a little more substance in this most recent post, but you still failed to address the questions that were posed to you in reference to your earlier post. You wrote:

One does not need a PHd to see Ritner is right and Gee is wrong.

So I ask again: Right and wrong about what? What are you talking about? The facts are that Gee has demonstrated, in professional Egyptological journals, numerous instances where Dr. Ritner has been â??wrongâ? about something. So, in order to assess whether or not your claim is factual, we will need to know to what exactly you are referring.

You also wrote:

He is sadly trying to rescue the BOA.

I asked you what you think Dr. Gee is trying to rescue the Book of Abraham from? Could you please elaborate?

You also wrote:

I bet in 10 years there will no real evidence regarding the BOA â?¦

To which I replied:

What do you mean by â??real evidence regarding the BoA?â? What are you talking about? Are you referring to evidence that the BoA exists? Or that it exhibits compelling signs of being a document of ancient origin? Please specify, and then weâ??ll see if we can determine whether or not your statement is factual.

Brent Metcalfe has made clearly articulated and largely measured claims based on his view of the evidence. He is almost always polite and respectful when doing so. Dan Vogel has done likewise. California Kid contributes substance to the discussion when he participates. I can appreciate their points of view even when I disagree with them. You, on the other hand, are only noted for contributing vacuous venom to every thread in which you participate. Perhaps you should seek to emulate these other gentlemen a little more and you will find your reception on this board to be occasioned by less rancor and more respectful acceptance.

I can empathize with and even respect those who feel that the evidence points to the fact that the Book of Abraham is a fictional account crafted by Joseph Smith. There is a body of evidence that, if considered in isolation, would seem to indicate precisely that. But there is also a body of evidence that, in my estimation and that of many others (including many highly-credentialed scholars), seems to contradict many of the criticsâ?? conclusions.

Iâ??m more than willing to permit each individual to form his own opinion based on the arguments being presented, but I have little patience for ill-informed and ill-mannered people who can do little more that hurl insults and mutter inarticulate derision from the sidelines. In your case, I donâ??t see your historical pattern changing anytime soon, and so I will endeavor to refrain from responding to your drivel in the future.

[Chris Smith]

Obviously there was. That is not in dispute.

Well, noel didn't mention facsimile 3, but besides that I do dispute the suggetion that there was more on the roll than the Book of Breathings and facsimile 1. I am very much looking forward to viewing Gee's published paper and footnotes, especially with respect to his mathematical formula. Assuming Gee's measurements and number-crunching are correct, my suspicion is the formula tells us the length of the roll prior to its being cut up by the ancient Egyptians for the purpose of writing several separate documents. In other words, the "missing" inner portion was missing since antiquity. When Seyffarth viewed the roll in the St. Louis museum, he doesn't seem to have noticed any 12-foot text following facsimile 3.

[William Schryver]

Well, noel didn't mention facsimile 3, but besides that I do dispute the suggetion that there was more on the roll than the Book of Breathings and facsimile 1. I am very much looking forward to viewing Gee's published paper and footnotes, especially with respect to his mathematical formula. Assuming Gee's measurements and number-crunching are correct, my suspicion is the formula tells us the length of the roll prior to its being cut up by the ancient Egyptians for the purpose of writing several separate documents. In other words, the "missing" inner portion was missing since antiquity. When Seyffarth viewed the roll in the St. Louis museum, he doesn't seem to have noticed any 12-foot text following facsimile 3.

I must confess that I did not understand the reasoning behind the formula that John was using. My impression was that it was designed to estimate the length of finished rather than blank rolls -- but I didn't get it and then I forgot to have him elaborate on the entire issue later on during the conference during our several conversations. So, I can't really speak to the issue until I get "further light and knowledge."

By the way, you'll have to plan to come to the conference next year. We'd all give you a seat of honor -- as long as you don't try to set up a table for your laptop!

[Chris Smith]

I definitely hope to!

[selek]

Well, noel didn't mention facsimile 3, but besides that I do dispute the suggetion that there was more on the roll than the Book of Breathings and facsimile 1. I am very much looking forward to viewing Gee's published paper and footnotes, especially with respect to his mathematical formula. Assuming Gee's measurements and number-crunching are correct, my suspicion is the formula tells us the length of the roll prior to its being cut up by the ancient Egyptians for the purpose of writing several separate documents. In other words, the "missing" inner portion was missing since antiquity. When Seyffarth viewed the roll in the St. Louis museum, he doesn't seem to have noticed any 12-foot text following facsimile 3.

If I remember the presentation correctly (and I very well may not), Gee's analysis estimated the lengths of the finished rolls, not the raw (though I really didn't follow the formula all that well myself).

I also believe he stated that the original collection was broken into two pieces- the fragments which were mounted/framed, went east, and survived.

If I recall correctly, the larger portion (which contained the longest sections and which he suggested might have contained the actual BoA)were retained for a time, passed through several sets of private hands, and were ultimately destroyed in the Chicago fire.

If I understood his argument correctly, Gee was of the opinion that the surviving texts flatly had nothing to do with the BoA, but one of the lost scrolls (destroyed in the fire) was attributed to a highly influential and well connected high priest (who was a contemporary of Ptolomey III and the Rosetta Stone, if memory serves) who would have had access to the library where a record such as the BoA would have been kept.

From Gee's presentation, I gather that this priest would have been at the right time and right place to have had access to the BoA scroll and would have duplicated it as part of his heritage and duties.

One thing that struck me about Gee's presentation was the honesty: he admitted that any guesses about what was on the other portions of papyrus are merely that- guesses, as we have no evidence.

He went on to demolish several critical arguments and did so in a way that I was (mostly) able to follow.

If his arguments (and a few guesses) are correct, it makes sense.

The portions of the JS Papyri which have survived were set apart from the remainder early on. None of these texts contains the BoA- which only follows logically.

I can't see the Church willingly parting with those texts, but I can see them setting apart other sections which are historically, but nor theologically valuable.

To mirror Gee's honesty in his presentation (that there was much speculation and little evidence in some of the modern BoA assertions), I must admit that I've probably mangled the poor man's work into something well-nigh unrecognizable.

I can't wait for the video and transcripts though!

[Chris Smith]

Hi Selek,

There are some inaccuracies in the information you presented, and I also somewhat question whether Gee really demolished certain critical arguments, but I think it best if I refrain from replying until the transcript is available.

-CK

[selek]

Hi Selek,

There are some inaccuracies in the information you presented, and I also somewhat question whether Gee really demolished certain critical arguments, but I think it best if I refrain from replying until the transcript is available.

-CK

As to the first, I can say with good company, "If there be any errors, they be the errors of men."

As to the second, of course you do.

And I can't wait for the transcript, either!

[e=mc2]

Noel100:

All that dirt work in Mesoamerica

As if this would *prove* anything.... I am quite sure you can find a gajillion (that's a tad more than a bagillion on the scale, truly) Mesoamerican scholar/archaeologists who will agree with your admittance that there has been so much digging done already that to continue is fruitless. All we now know is all there is.......... tra la la la.......

[urroner]

Noel100:

As if this would *prove* anything.... I am quite sure you can find a gajillion (that's a tad more than a bagillion on the scale, truly) Mesoamerican scholar/archaeologists who will agree with your admittance that there has been so much digging done already that to continue is fruitless. All we now know is all there is.......... tra la la la.......

Talking about big numbers:

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims, bursting into tears. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

[juliann]

I am very much looking forward to viewing Gee's published paper and footnotes, especially with respect to his mathematical formula.

It isn't "his" formula. Again, why don't you know about it?

[Chris Smith]

It isn't "his" formula. Again, why don't you know about it?

I'm aware that he's drawing it from the Egyptological literature. He explained it to me over the telephone some time ago, but not in any great detail. At the time, he seemed to have no intention of going to print with it because, in his words, "who would believe me?" Later in an email I expressed my desire to learn more and encouraged him to publish it. I never heard back from him about it, though. By co-opting the formula for his purposes, of course, he is making it sufficiently "his" to justify my phrasing above.

-CK

Edited to remove aggravated outburst.

[pBarlow]

I can think of a couple of reasons why this could be "his" formula.

For one thing, Gee makes no mention of this in his previous arguments.

Instead of asking the CaliforniaKid why he doesn't know about this formula, you should probably ask why Robert Ritner doesn't know about it either.

For that matter, we should ask why Gee didn't seem to know about it six years ago. Surely he would have mentioned it if this were a legitimate means to prove the JS papyri were as long as 12 feet!

Or so one would think, since mentioning it certainly would have saved him a lot of time and frustration with the eye-witness testimonies.

Gee's missing papyrus theory faces further problems once we realize that virtually all of the historic references to the material, can be reasonably connected to depictions in the extant papyri. So the historic descriptions fall in line with what we have today, and what we have today, according to Gee, is only a "fraction" (less than 15%) of the original collection. This doesn't seem plausible. Why do all the eye-witness testimonies always refer to irrelevant material unrelated to the Book of Abraham?

[Calm]

I'm aware that he's drawing it from the Egyptological literature. He explained it to me over the telephone some time ago, but not in any great detail. At the time, he seemed to have no intention of going to print with it because, in his words, "who would believe me?"

He posted the formula at the conference. I got the impression that it was a well accepted tool, though perhaps of recent appearance, but hardly would be something commonly known outside the field. I've taken 'higher math' (started out as a physics/astronomy major) and it was obvious to me an explanation of the derivation of the lengthy equation would have made no sense to the majority of the people in the audience. I would have had to go pull out my old textbooks...that is if I had kept them. The simplified version from what I recall had about three variables, two of which I believe were thickness of the roll and curvature (how tightly it was wound perhaps?) but I didn't take notes so can't guarantee this. Gee gave a brief explanation.

He, IIRC, presented the "who would believe me" idea as even himself having problems accepting the results in that it gave much longer lengths for the "long roll" than he anticipated and it was an unusual result for papyri as well--so he checked his math many times and then went and checked the equation many times and then went and checked the assumptions the equation was based on. All passed his inspection and the formula did give expected/relatively typical results for the other scrolls.

IIRC, Gee believes the "long roll" is different from the "Horos roll" based on eyewitness descriptions....there were three sources referenced IIRC. Sorry don't have more detail. Perhaps someone who took notes for this can add some material.

Gee's missing papyrus theory faces further problems once we realize that virtually all of the historic references to the material, can be reasonably connected to depictions in the extant papyri.

This is, in part, what is being debated.

Todd Wood has posted quite a bit of his experience at FAIR including some notes of the talk. While he apparently took quite a few notes on Gee's presentation, he didn't post much. Anyone interested could ask him for more detail over at http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/200...-2007-john-gee/

[pBarlow]

Calmoriah, how "long" is long I wonder. The breathings text is certainly the longest portion of the extant papyri, so it would make sense to refer to it as the long portion.

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.

And I wonder how many fellow Egyptologists agree with his calculated length of the JS papyri. I can think of a few who disagree, but I cannot think of any who agree.

Surely he would also mention these supporters as well, assuming they exist.

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.

Ritner strongly suggested that Gee was being rushed through the Ph.D process because he had a BYU job awaiting him. This is why Ritner recommended that he find someone else as his dissertation advisor - because he could not, in good conscience, sign off on his doctorate. Gee didn't have time to do the necessary work for a Ritner approved Ph.D.

[Calm]

And I wonder how many fellow Egyptologists agree with his calculated length of the JS papyri. I can think of a few who disagree, but I cannot think of any who agree.

Since he hasn't published this info from what he said, how can anyone disagree with it?

[pBarlow]

Since he hasn't published this info from what he said, how can anyone disagree with it?

Gee has already published his argument for a missing papyrus, on at least two occasions. Prominent Egyptologists with more experience and knowledge than Gee, found his conclusions not only wrong, but utterly ridiculous.

I see no reason why their estimations should be dispensed with simply because Gee spoke at an apologetic conference and claims to have tapped into an Egyptological "formula" which allegedly vindicates his apologetic (a formula few seem to have understood and which no one here has been able to explain). Why not present this argument in a scholarly venue where he could be critiqued by those qualified? Is it because, as Gee has said, "who would believe it"?

And make no mistake about it, Gee's argument here is apologetic to the core. He has been trying to justify his past blunders for many years now. This is what this "formula" business is all about, and it impresses only the adherents of the faith he is trying to defend. Scholars in the field do not find his apologetic arguments impressive.

And before people start grilling me for "jumping to conclusions" based on "lack of knowledge in Egyptian," they should ask themselves why they're willing to jump to the conclusion that Gee is correct, when in fact nobody here has the Egyptological background to make that judgment.

I just find it unlikely that a group of professional Egyptologists would be so wrong on this and a renegade apologist in the field would have it right. Motives speak volumes, and often tell a story that needs to be told.

And where are all the Egyptologists who agree with Gee's theory... He is quick to mention those who support him on irrelevant and trivial anecdotes, but I wonder why they tend to vanish whenever the meat of his apologetic is presented.

Calling all critical thinkers.

[Calm]

Do you have anything more to demonstrate that your own conclusions are based on anything more substantive besides vague repetition of the opinions of unnamed others?

Gee has already published his argument for a missing papyrus, on at least two occasions. Prominent Egyptologists with more experience and knowledge than Gee, found his conclusions not only wrong, but utterly ridiculous.

CFR