Page 1 of 9
Egyptologists and the Joseph Smith Papyri
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:54 am
by _John Gee
[MODERATOR NOTE: This post was not made by the real John Gee. The real John Gee was made aware of this post and isn't happy with it, so as a courtesy I'm deleting it and the account under his name.
Now before anyone cries "Censorship!", please keep in mind that posts made under one's own name/handle/moniker are sacrosanct. When it comes to impersonating others, however, there's no inherent safety net.
Now before anyone starts reminding me of the "Tommy," "Boyd_K_Packer," and "David A. Bednar" accounts, the real Elders Packer, Monson, and Bednar haven't complained yet.
Thank you for your time & consideration in this matter, yadda yadda yadda.]
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:01 am
by _Fortigurn
Is this another hilarious parody?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:51 pm
by _gramps
Fortigurn wrote:Is this another hilarious parody?
Sometimes in Mormonism, it is hard to tell the real from the parody. Isn't it?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:20 pm
by _Fortigurn
Very. I still can't tell if he's serious or not.
A professional opinion
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:03 pm
by _Paul Osborne
NOTE - THE ORIGINAL POSTER OF THIS THREAD IS NOT REALLY JOHN GEE. THE IMPOSTER IS A FRAUD, A JERK, AND AN EVIL DOER. THE IMPOSTER IS A LIAR AND WE ALL KNOW THAT LIARS WILL HAVE THEIR PLACE IN HELL UNLESS THEY REPENT.
Occasionally I write nonLDS Egyptologist Juan Castillos to see what he thinks about statements from John Gee. Those conversations are private unless he offers me the option to quote him. One thing is for sure, John Gee is a very competent Egyptologist – but with that said, he does have weaknesses in critical areas when it comes to Book of Abraham apologetics. Gee is taking some hits from his critics and the pressure is certainly mounting. My own hostility towards Gee’s apologetics has been vented in various places on the Internet. I’ve become increasingly weary of scholars keeping the Kirtland Egyptian Papers under lock and key. I want those LDS treasures to come forth for public scrutiny where we can all examine them under the best conditions available. Keeping those papers hidden away will only make the pot boil over - sooner or later those papers will have to come forth. I call for a release of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers to be given to the Latter-day Saints at large. Let the faith of the saints be tested!
Anyway, here is a clip from professor Castillos:
"You can quote me on this, if you wish. I was talking to
Prof. Gee at a Scholars´ Colloquium a few months ago and
we had a long conversation, as usual, I respect him as a
fellow egyptologist and I expressed my good wishes that
one day he may take up Nibley´s position at BYU as a
knowledgeable source of information on a number of subjects."
Re: Egyptologists and the Joseph Smith Papyri
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:11 pm
by _harmony
From the foregoing, it should be evident that Egyptologists are not qualified to evaluate historical evidence, and sould stick to commenting within the bounds of their own discipline.
-John Gee, Professor of Egyptology
If this isn't a parody, we're all in trouble, if this is an example of the best LDS Egyptologist we can offer.
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:26 pm
by _Paul Osborne
Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri,
I think we are obligated to consider what others said about the papyrus who actually saw the papyrus. What did they say about it? These statements are what clue us into the true nature of the Joseph Smith papyrus. Here is a link (must bookmark) that provides a comprehensive yet, easy-to-read page about who said what regarding the LDS papyrus. This is a no nonsense approach to getting to the core of the real issue at hand. It's free and you don't have to wade through books, web pages, and a zillion footnotes just to get to the facts.
Eyewitnesses of the Joseph Smith Papyri:
http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id746.htm
Paul O
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:54 pm
by _CaliforniaKid
Parody or not, the arguments offered in the original post are the real deal. Gee has used precisely these arguments in the publications he mentioned.
What a Mess
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:18 pm
by _Inconceivable
Essential questions:
1) Is the original or copy of the papyri that Joseph Smith derived his Egyptian alphabet still in existence? Is it available? If so, who has it?
2) Is his alphabet yet in existence? Is it available? If so, who has it?
3) Is his an accurate translation of the original/copy?
How about some simple yes/no/maybe's without the buts & howevers that segway into 3rd party conjecture.
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:06 pm
by _Brackite
Hello! I have more respect for Robert Ritner as an Egyptologist, than I do with John Gee. And as for the missing roll theory for the Book of Abraham, John Gee must be joking and kidding. The following just below here is a Post of mine from another Thread here about the Book of Abraham:
Hi There again,
Here is some more very overwhelming that the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text), is indeed the very source from which the Book of Abraham came from. The following is a Post from our friend here 'Who Knows' from the CTR Message Board:
Here's some things to think about for those 'missing papyri' theorists:
- Fac.1 is at the beginning of the BOB, as well as the beginning of the Book of Abraham.
- Fac.3 (though it doesn't exist today) is at the end of the Book of Abraham, and refers to the same story as told in the BOB. In other words, the text of the Book of Abraham is somewhere between Fac. 1 and Fac. 3, however, there's absolutely no justification for assuming any missing text between those, as the Facs. are 'bookends' to the same story (as noted by the translations of the Facs.)
- The text of the Book of Abraham refers to Fac.1 as being at the beginning of the record. And this text comes before Fac. 3.
- The characters next to the text in the KEP (whether put there by the scribes on their own, or at Joseph Smith's direction) come directly from the BOB - IN ORDER no less. In the very least - Joseph Smith's personal scribes for the translation of the Book of Abraham felt that the Book of Abraham came from the BOB.
- Joseph Smith's translations of the Facs. were clearly wrong. Yes, some have been able to find similarities for a few of his translations. However, they are wrong in the sense of being direct translations. Thus, Joseph Smith's method of translation (the way he 'translated') was clearly unconventional. I'm assuming the way he translated the Facs. is similar to the way he translated the text of the Book of Abraham. In other words, if his translations of the Facs. were not traditional, why would anyone expect his translations of the Book of Abraham text to be different?
- Some of the Facs. were damaged prior to Joseph Smith's purchase of them. Joseph Smith 'restored' these facsimiles - using characters from the BOB.
- Joseph Smith's translations as seen in the GAEL are clearly wrong. This should be some kind of indicator of the methods used to translate the text of the Book of Abraham. Also, the characters used in the GAEL come from the BOB.
Those are just some of the things that to me, indicate that the BOB is the source of the Book of Abraham. There is absolutely no evidence to assume the translation came from any missing records - other than the fact that the BOB is not the Book of Abraham.
(
http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136 )
Now here is what Kevin Graham wrote, in a Post of his on that Discussion Thread, over there:
kevingraham wrote:I would add that the original Facsimile #2 suffered from lacunae over to the right. Apparently Joseph Smith decided to fill in the holes while using symbols from the BoB -
the text apologists tell us have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham.
The facsimile with BoB symbols was published as part of the Book of Abraham so it cannot be argued that some scribe decided to do this on his own without Smith's consent.
Rhodes argued that someone filled it in just to make it look better, but this is a lame argument without a shred of evidence to support it. to Especially since Smith filled in the lucuna of the BoB and indicated that he did so via inspiration. Thus, it follows that he did likewise with Fac 2.
(
http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136 )
The evidence is indeed very, very overwhelming that the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text), is indeed the very source from which the Book of Abraham came from.
( http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... kite#21888 )