September 11, 2001 was a major turning point in more ways than one. On the day the twin towers came down was the day Dan vowed never to discourse with Brent. He resented Brent’s comment:
gtaggart, the fact that—as you observe—the photo is unclear does raise the question of intentionality. Gee—who has presumably had access to high resolution images, if not the originals themselves—must know that his claim is specious. To suggest otherwise would be to imbue Gee with unfathomable incompetence.
Dan responded:
Brent, after pleasant talk at the FAIR symposium of kinder and gentler future interactions, I have to admit that this comment, with its suggestion of either "unfathomable incompetence" on Professor Gee's part or -- the sole proffered alternative -- deliberate deception, is rather disappointing.
eboy and others have ratcheted such accusations up to a whole new level recently (or, perhaps better, have dragged the conversation here down to new depths), and it's very regrettable.
Brent responded:
John is an especially easy target for critique because of how uncharitable—if not mean-spirited—he is toward those with whom he disagrees. Quite honestly I am mystified as to how he made such a mistake. Perhaps it was something much more innocuous (such as an editorial insertion that Gee didn't even author); if so, it is not immediately apparent. Gee has made important inroads in dating the papyri—I commend him for this. On the other hand, his analyses of the Egyptian grammar and alphabet mss. and the BoAbr mss. are bewildering, and his criticisms of his interlocutors rancorous.
My venting aside, your point is well taken. I don't know what circumstances led to Gee's error—I only know that he is mistaken. I know that there are several ZLMBers who have an interest in the BoAbr mss.—perhaps we could meet with John sometime in the Salt Lake area to clarify the issues.
The next day Gee sent DCP an email to post his “clarification:
The argument claims that I am (1) stupid because I used the term "overrun" to mean "overwrite," and (2) dishonest because the text is not overwritten. I never intended the term "overrun" to mean "overwrite" since they are not synonyms. The term "overwrite" means "to write (something) over other writing." "Overrun," on the other hand, means "to run farther than or beyond (a certain point, a limit, etc.); to exceed." I used the term correctly to argue that Egyptian characters ran farther than or beyond the margin line and into the space used for the English text -- in fact, in one instance, into the indentation left by the English text. The Egyptian may overrun the English without necessarily overwriting the English.
Brent responds:
So why did Gee distinguish between characters that "run over" margin lines and those that also "run over" English text if by his definition he meant the same thing in both?! Note Gee's distinction: "The examples show [among other things] that the characters ... run over the margins (examples 1, 2, 5) and sometimes the English text (example 1)" (John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri [Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000], 22). Moreover, why were examples 2 and 5 conspicuously excluded from the latter category?
Let's reconstruct what Gee meant. He says that he was simply stating that some characters "run over [or "run farther than" or "run beyond" or "exceed"] ... the English text"?! (See John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri [Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000], 22.) What on earth is Gee talking about?! ... Some characters run farther than "the English text"? ... or, Some characters run beyond "the English text"? ... or, Some characters exceed "the English text"? Pure sophistry. I didn't think I could be disappointed by Gee's antics, but I am.
If Gee's retrospective excuse were taken seriously, it would mean that he has no evidence for his hypothesis—none.
(Second response)
Given Gee's clear distinction between characters that "run over the margins" and those that "run over ... the English text" I consider my initial reading of Gee a faithful interpretation. In my view he has created a nonsensical reinterpretation to cover an obvious mistake. I owe John no apology.
My hesitation in uncritically accepting Gee's (re)take on his argument stems from personal experience with Gee. Several years ago on the now defunct morm-ant e-list, Gee criticized a footnote in my essay "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26.3 [Fall 1993]: 153-84). John objected to my reference, "On the application of narrative theory in biblical exegesis, see Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981); and Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985)" (168n48) because Alter and Stenberg disagree with each other on pivotal points. I pointed out to Gee that I never suggested otherwise and that my purpose in citing both was because of their divergent views, an idea that I explained to Gee in some detail. Gee offered no response. You'll understand my surprise when some months later John published a review of my edited anthology New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993) in which he leveled precisely the same criticism he had on morm-ant, insinuating that I had not even read the works that I cited. No mention was made of my detailed explanation countering John. I feel now as I did then that such flagrant dishonesty—irrespective of whether Gee agreed with my explanation—has no place in scholarly discourse.
Despite my personal feelings about Gee's clarification on his use of "overrun"/"run over," you can rest assured that in publications on the BoAbr I will clearly acknowledge John's clarification in lieu of pointing out his error. I see no value in belaboring the issue.
DCP responds with the usual disdain:
This latest accusation of "flagrant dishonesty" on the part of Professor Gee should, I think, be received with much the same skepticism and lack of awe that all of the analogous accusations leveled against him -- in this recent flurry of attempted character assassination -- have proved to merit.
It grows tiresome, and more than a little repellant.
Back to Brent:
If John's character has been assassinated, he holds the smoking gun.
On 19 November 1993 Gee posted (among other things) on morm-ant (a now defunct e-list hosted by Bill Hamblin):
[John Gee:] Sternberg's book is not an easy read and, though Brent cited it in his article, I cannot help but wonder about the care with which he read it. Brent cites Sternberg among works of general support for his thesis about literary texts not being historical. Sternberg, however, attacks precisely this thesis on pp. 23-35. Sternberg's conclusions about the Bible are worth quoting here: "So every word is God's word. The product is neither fiction nor historicized fiction nor fictionalized history, but history pure and uncompromising." (pp. 34-35) [John Gee to morm-ant, 19 Nov. 1993].
Gee's criticism was unfounded—I had never claimed in my article that Sternberg buttressed my ideas. On 22 November 1993, I replied on morm-ant:
[Brent:] I cited Sternberg to point readers to trends in narrative criticism. Robert Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative)--whom I also cite--critiqued Sternberg's earlier narrative models as Sternberg's book critiqued Alter's models, and both provide balance. In any event, my understanding of Sternberg's historical assumptions still differs from Gee's. If I remember correctly--it's been five years since I read Sternberg--Sternberg speaks of a unified omniscient biblical author. (Sternberg offers little reconciliation with other narrator models such as his postulation of a limited writer [&/or implied author, &/or narrator] for books like Nehemiah.) Within the world of the reader (&/or implied reader, &/or narratee), then, the Bible is indeed "history pure and uncompromising." Sternberg's thesis also involves the notion that "fiction" and "history" are literary genres that can accommodate both factual and invented information. And given the biblical author's assumed inspiration, a special dispensation can be accorded the sacred author because he/she is not concerned with "what happened?" but with "is it true?" (If anyone wants an exhilarating intellectual experience, read Sternberg's work and categorize his views on "history," "history-telling," "historicity," "historiographic," and "historiographical"; "truth claim" and "truth value," etc.) Consequently, Gee's (empiricist) interpretation of Sternberg's (literary) idea of historicity is deficient in my view [Brent Lee Metcalfe to morm-ant, 22 Nov. 1993].
Gee's review that mentioned my article appeared in the FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6.1, which went on sale over three months later in March 1994. I had clearly told John why I cited Sternberg, and he had ample time to modify his review to reflect this. Instead, Gee chose to write,
[John Gee:] In the "Introduction," [to New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology] Metcalfe spews forth a slough of references, claiming that the books he cites are "introductions to critical methods" that will lead us to paths of truth" [RBBM, 6.1:67].
Gee then footnotes:
[John Gee:] Metcalfe also does this in "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity," 168 n. 48; his citation of Mier Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985) shows that he can hardly have read it carefully, since Sternberg attacks precisely Metcalfe's argument that if a book is literary it cannot be historical (ibid., 23-25); for Sternberg "every word [in the Hebrew Bible] is God's word. The product is neither fiction nor historicized fiction nor fictionalized history, but historiography [sic] pure and uncompromising" (ibid., 34-35). Because Metcalfe refers to many of these works only once without any page numbers and argues without a knowledge or understanding of their contents, one wonders if he has read any of them at all [RBBM, 6.1:67n64; "[in the Hebrew Bible]" are Gee's brackets].
Gee reiterated his unfounded criticism as if I had never responded. Is this is your idea intellectual honesty and scholarly integrity Dan?
DCP responds:
If the Shoe Fits . . .
. . . smear it.
I guess, in the interests of ideological total war, that your talk of kindness, charity, and civility was a smokescreen. I regret that I was briefly taken in by it.
And I echo Pahoran's comment about the self-important emoticon. These incessant accusations of conscious deception do not merit it.
Brent responds:
My comments to you at the FAIR conference were genuine. As I said, John's spiteful reviews have opened him to close scrutiny. For almost eight years I've said nothing about how John disregarded my pre-publication response to his criticism in his published review. John's sophistic response on characters that "run over ... English text"—in lieu of taking responsibility—spurred me to discuss my personal encounter with Gee's antics (and there are others). Much of Gee's venom has dripped from pages of journals under your editorial watch. I hope that alerting you to this may bring about change. There is a fundamental difference between those of us who through years of culling evidentiary sources have honestly and painfully concluded that Joseph Smith's purported ancient texts are not ancient, and those who wantonly debase Mormonism with cut-and-paste research that so often typifies anti-Mormon and apologetic propaganda.
If you have concerns about whether FARMS researchers have been treated dishonestly in publications that I have been involved with, please let me know—I will do what I can to rectify matters.
That you would side with Russell McGregor (a.k.a. Pahoran) on anything is truly a pity. Then again, perhaps this is a manifestation of your ironic humor. ;^)
I didn't intend to offended you Dan—my only recourse to your encouragement to treat my claim with "skepticism" was to present the facts as I know them.
Seymor Bloom chimes in:
In “A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri”, Dr. Gee wrote that the Egyptian characters “overran” or “run over” the English text. I, as well as many other posters in this thread, thought that this meant that the Egyptian characters were written on top of the English text. We were correct in this assumption, since one of the meanings of “run over”, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is “flow over”. The end result of Egyptian characters “flowing over” English text would be English text that was overwritten by the Egyptian characters.
DCP:
Good grief, Mr. Bloom. Give it a rest. The smoking gun is out of water, its plug is missing, and its plastic handle is cracked.
Unimpressive stuff, altogether. Even with the impressive amounts of compensatory huffing and puffing.
This was really an interesting discussion. I recommend taking a gander at the rest, I don’t have the patience to post it all:
http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =179.topic“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
