DiscussMormonism.com

John Gee’s “Introduction to the Book of Abraham”: A Lifetime of Book of Abraham Scholarship Distilled into a Valuable Book for a Broad Audience

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:It was a pleasure to read John Gee’s recently published An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2017). This book is aimed for a broad audience with an interest in the Book of Abraham.

Does this broad audience include Egyptologists who are not of the Mormon faith? Has the work been critically reviewed by Egyptologists who don’t have a belief in Mormonism or faith in Joseph Smith’s ability to translate Egyptian? Is it circulated among universities that study Egyptology?

Why do I have the impression that this work is strictly a Mormon production designed to facilitate the needs of Mormons who are questioning Smith’s ability to translate and interpret Egyptian? Could it be that this book is pure Mormon propaganda that would gain no support whatsoever from the World Body of Egyptology?

Suddenly, it seems, this book is hardly written for a broad audience! In fact, it seems fair to say that this book is written for a very NARROW audience with an interest in the Book of Abraham. An audience of people who likely are having a hard time understanding the controversies and question whether the book is really an authentic record translated by Joseph Smith.

Isn’t that right, Jeff? Will you agree with that assessment?

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:Confusion over the Book of Abraham has flustered many members and investigators of the Church.

You mean to say that investigators examining Mormonism are agitated and confused with what seems to be obvious contradictions between Joseph Smith’s claims and that of modern Egyptology, the latter of which learned to read the language just as they did anciently?

Members of the church, “many”, are also taken back with trying to reason through the confusion. So, Jeff, how are they suppose to settle this confusion between what Smith translated and what modern Egyptologists have translated? Your answer is so simple with this little booklet written by a biased Mormon Egyptologist, named John Gee:





Jeff, is this one Egyptologist and perhaps another Mormon Egyptologist to join him for testimony sake, all that is needed to discount or discredit what the World Body of Egyptologists might have to say about Joseph Smith’s translations and interpretations of the papyri in which he possessed -- to include the very vignettes which were copied as Facsimiles and later published in Mormon scripture?

That is a very lengthy question, is it not, Jeff?

Who are you going to believe? John Gee or the World Body of Egyptologists? You will agree that the World Body of Egyptologists with rare exception of those by birthright have NOT joined Mormonism as a result of Joseph Smith’s claims about the Book of Abraham papyrus. It stands to reason that if the vast World Body of Egyptologists refuse to join Mormonism based on what they know about Egyptology and Joseph Smith’s claim on that subject, then there must be little in John Gee’s book to persuade flustered investigators to join the church and likewise, there must be little in that book to console the confused member.

In reality, I think the book was mainly written to console the author and other Mormon apologists.

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote: About 20 years ago I personally had a similar crisis of faith while serving as bishop after considering a convincing argument on the Book of Abraham from a well-known anti-Mormon source.

You were just one bishop, Jeff. One of many who walk by faith. Imagine the same “convincing argument” taken to every bishop of the Church simultaneously! Do you think there would be a church-wide faith crisis and that the General Authorities would get pulled into the whole affair being forced to act -- and have to start making authoritative statements in order to counter the argument?

I submit to you, had those arguments (ESPECIALLY MY ARGUMENTS TODAY) been submitted to every bishop in your ecclesiastical day there would have been a major apostasy not seen since the days of Kirtland. Suddenly every ward in the Church would be faced with a spiritual crisis.

Shulem wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:23 pm

In reality, I think the book was mainly written to console the author and other Mormon apologists.

It is really hard to see any other way. I don't get the sense that even Jeff Lindsay really want to talk specifics about the Book of Abraham. Instead, having this book means he has something to point to rather than seeding discussion of the topic.

NorthboundZax wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:27 pm

Shulem wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:23 pm

In reality, I think the book was mainly written to console the author and other Mormon apologists.

It is really hard to see any other way. I don't get the sense that even Jeff Lindsay really want to talk specifics about the Book of Abraham. Instead, having this book means he has something to point to rather than seeding discussion of the topic.

Maybe Jeff will get wind of this thread and want to come talk to me. I can’t think of a better place to discuss these matters in a fair and reasonable way than right here in the Celestial Forum of Discuss Mormonism. I trust his knowledge in these matters runs rather deep and he has a wide understanding of the concepts and can grasp the whole picture.

Thank you, NorthboundZax, for commenting and you are welcome to comment or add content at any time. This is an open forum.

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote: This was a few years after a previous bishopric member and his family in my town had left the Church initially over Book of Abraham issues and then started his own anti-Mormon website.

I can honestly say that the Book of Abraham certainly was instrumental in helping me finally exit the Church. When I finally realized that it simply couldn’t be defended any longer it was time to close the curtain on that Act.

You mention the “anti-Mormon” website above. Perhaps you may agree with me that Mormons tend to use that name in a very negative way to describe their opponents. The use of the word anti certainly carries negative connotations. I think Mormons like to use it to their advantage in order to make the other side look evil or vicious. But that’s just my opinion and technically that can be proven as a universal usage. So perhaps it’s a moot point. But let’s be fair and turn the tables, shall we?

It could be said by defenders of conventional Egyptology that Smith’s work on the papyrus could be labeled as anti-Egyptology. In fact, I think it is entirely fair to say that the Explanations of the Facsimiles are most certainly “anti-Egyptology”.

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote: The argument that I think stung both of us was compelling: Joseph claimed to have translated Egyptian by the power of God, apparently like he translated the gold plates.

Jeff,

We agree on one POINT: Joseph did claim to “translate” the gold plates and he also claimed to “translate” the papyrus. But HOW he translated and the method employed thereby is entirely another discussion as well as whether he did it through the power of God or not. We can leave those TWO points out of the picture for now. What matters right now and we both agree, Smith claimed to translate both items.

I can certainly understand the sting coming from the argument on those various points you make in your statement. But for now, let’s just focus on one of them:

Smith claimed to translate both the plates and the papyrus.

What exactly does this mean? I think most reasonable people will agree that what it means is that what was on the plates is now in the paperbound book entitled the Book of Mormon and what was on the papyrus is now in the paperbound book entitled the Book of Abraham.

1) What’s on the plates is now in the Book of Mormon
2) What’s on the papyrus is now in the Book of Abraham

This also works in reverse, meaning that both paperbound books written in the English language or another language published in modern times could theoretically be translated BACK into the same exact content that is on the plates and the papyrus. In other words, someone who knows how to translate so-called “reformed Egyptian” could take the entire contents of the Book of Mormon and write it out in a complete “reformed Egyptian” script. Likewise, someone who knows how to translate the conventional hieroglyphic language (John Gee for example) could take the Book of Abraham as presently constituted and translate it back into the same Egyptian that was on the original scroll.

This makes for a very interesting prospect. If this being the case we have the following two manuscripts written in the original foreign language:

1) Book of Mormon written in reformed Egyptian
2) Book of Abraham written in hieroglyphic text

This, however, is not without problems! The chapters of the Book of Abraham could be penned on a very long roll and the Book of Mormon would be much longer. But what about Facsimile No. 2? Now we run into a serious problem because Smith restored certain portions of the damaged Hypocephalus using characters from other papyri as a template and translated the adopted characters in the registers into the Explanations. Thus, Smith tendered Explanations of various hieroglyphs he inserted into the registers and those translations cannot possibly match what was on the original undamaged Hypocephalus. If the characters don’t match neither will the translation of the very characters in which they represent!

Therefore, it can be reasoned that the Explanations of Facsimile No. 2 are fatally flawed and the translation cannot possibly match what the original artists penned!

Do you see my point, Jeff?

I entirely agree with how you are presenting this Shulem. Excellent, straight forward - not rude - questions demonstrating why so many of us had our end due to the Book of Abraham, and Gee has not changed that. I believe Lindsey is also quite stretching things in attempting to portray this apologetic missive as having a broad audience. It does not have such. Great thread, and keep up the good work. I too would invite Lindsey here for a discussion of the actual issues with the Book of Abraham, not the John Gee approach.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:57 pm

I entirely agree with how you are presenting this Shulem. Excellent, straight forward - not rude - questions demonstrating why so many of us had our end due to the Book of Abraham, and Gee has not changed that. I believe Lindsey is also quite stretching things in attempting to portray this apologetic missive as having a broad audience. It does not have such. Great thread, and keep up the good work. I too would invite Lindsey here for a discussion of the actual issues with the Book of Abraham, not the John Gee approach.

Indeed it would be interesting to have a conversation with Lindsay here in the Celestial Forum where it’s just as important to follow the rules and show upmost courtesy as it is to try and make your own point. Discussion in this forum should be of the highest caliber where integrity and goodwill is clearly demonstrated and manifest.

I would love to have a discussion with Lindsay and ask him several questions that perhaps he’s not very used to being asked. You know that I’m not the typical critic -- I think it’s safe to say that I’m one of the heavyweights! Book of Abraham apologists would find me very challenging. They may bring all their scholarship and all their source materials to the table but at the end of the day you know that I’ll twist their arms with that pesky king’s name that does not exist in Facsimile No. 3. They don’t want to talk about that and will avoid that particular topic. They will try to change the subject or offer up an interesting parallel to show how neat things can be compared. But in the end, no king’s name and I won’t stop reminding them of that single very important problem they cannot solve.

So, to get past square one in our fun little game of Book of Abraham hopscotch; what is the king’s name? Let’s talk about the king’s name, Jeff.

What is it?

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:Now the Egyptian manuscripts have been found that Joseph used, and today we can read Egyptian and objectively evaluate his divine translation skills.

Yes, we do have the fascinating Kirtland Egyptian Papers as so named by Hugh Nibley. And thank goodness for the Joseph Smith Papers website! Those materials do show us how Joseph Smith and his personal scribes deciphered and manipulated hieroglyphic characters into English meaning. That is a subject in and of itself. But let’s set that aside for now and streamline our conversation to a more manageable level as we get to know each other. Does that sound fair? The Kirtland Papers is a very vast topic! However, if you desire to tell me what you think of Smith’s work with those projects then by all means express yourself. But I may choose not to reply at this time so that we don’t get overloaded with too much at once.

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:Bottom line: He didn’t get anything right. The work is a complete fraud, as was Joseph. End of story. Ouch!

And there you have it, Jeff. In your own words, bottom line, Joseph Smith didn’t get anything right with regard to Facsimile No. 3, Fig. 2., “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.”

The explanation tendered is not right. In fact, it’s a fraudulent statement from an Egyptian point of view. Indeed, Ouch! There is no king’s name written in the hieroglyphic writing within the register above the head.

That is a painful fact for any apologist to attempt to reconcile! Wouldn’t you agree?