The Egyptian Test

[Guest]

As you may be aware, I have on a number of occasions posted rebuttals to John Gee's book and article on the "missing papyrus theory". I have mostly limited myself to historical evidence, though where minimal expertise is required I have also ventured to criticize some of his Egyptological judgments (as when he points to examples of funerary texts and unrelated texts on the same roll). Recently I pointed out that a statement in Gee's Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri is incorrect. I stated that this was an intentional misrepresentation ("lie" is the word I used on MDB), at which point everybody screamed "libel" (though nobody really tried to defend the incorrect statement except to point to Gee's credentials). Somewhat chastened (because I realize it's messed up to accuse somebody of duplicity when they're not present to defend themselves), I edited my posts to remove the potentially slanderous charge. My arguments, however, stand unanswered by either John Gee or the MADB apologetic community.

I'm guessing that, because of my denunciation of Gee, somebody pointed him to my post. His response was to send the moderators an "Egyptian test" in which he asks his critics to demonstrate their Egyptological competence by transliterating and translating some hieroglyphics and hieratic script. This seems to be a sort of "entrance exam" that critics must pass in order to have the privilege of dialoguing with the great doctor. Apparently if someone is not well-versed in the technical tools of Egyptology, they can't possibly have anything of value to contribute.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=25069

[_Runtu]

As you may be aware, I have on a number of occasions posted rebuttals to John Gee's book and article on the "missing papyrus theory". I have mostly limited myself to historical evidence, though where minimal expertise is required I have also ventured to criticize some of his Egyptological judgments (as when he points to examples of funerary texts and unrelated texts on the same roll). Recently I pointed out that a statement in Gee's Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri is incorrect. I stated that this was an intentional misrepresentation, at which point everybody screamed "libel" (though nobody really tried to defend the incorrect statement except to point to Gee's credentials). Somewhat chastened (because I realize it's messed up to accuse somebody of duplicity when they're not present to defend themselves), I edited my posts to remove the potentially slanderous charge. My arguments, however, stand unanswered by either John Gee or the MADB apologetic community.

I'm guessing that, because of my denunciation of Gee, somebody pointed him to my post. His response was to send the moderators an "Egyptian test" in which he asks his critics to demonstrate their Egyptological competence by transliterating and translating some hieroglyphics and hieratic script. This seems to be a sort of "entrance exam" that critics must pass in order to have the privilege of dialoguing with the great doctor. Apparently if someone is not well-versed in the technical tools of Egyptology, they can't possibly have anything of value to contribute.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=25069

Wow, I missed that one. I wouldn't pass such a test, but then I don't claim to know much about Egyptology and the Book of Abraham. From what I've read, very few nonapologists think highly of Gee's defenses of the Book of Abraham.

I will say that this "test" thing seems a little silly.

Are you going to take the test? Inquiring minds want to know.

[_Who Knows]

wtf is this? if you can't 'pass' his test, you can't comment on the Book of Abraham?

what a douchebag.

wait, can i be threatened with a lawsuit for saying that?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Wow, I missed that one. I wouldn't pass such a test, but then I don't claim to know much about Egyptology and the Book of Abraham. From what I've read, very few nonapologists think highly of Gee's defenses of the Book of Abraham.

I will say that this "test" thing seems a little silly.

Are you going to take the test? Inquiring minds want to know.

No. I might be able to bumble through it if I put enough time into the endeavor, but I see no reason to play the credentials game. My response to his challenge was as follows:

I presume this post was made in response to my recent comments on Gee's interpretation of Gustavus Seyffath's comments about the papyrus in the St. Louis Museum. I don't have to know how to transliterate hieratic in order to understand Seyffarth's statement (which was written in English). If Gee would like to respond to some of the historical arguments I have advanced, I would love to interact with him on that subject. His post here, though, is like sending Royal Skousen a copy of the Anthon transcript and telling him his text-critical judgments on the Book of Mormon manuscripts are worthless until he can transliterate and translate the transcript. That obviously isn't required and is only minimally relevant to the kind of work Skousen is engaging in. As for translating and restoring the papyri, I will leave those problems to persons like Ritner and Thompson who have the credentials to make such judgments.

As I pointed out to Will on the recent Book of Abraham thread, Gee's credentials are only relevant if he actually brings his various tools to bear on the subject matter. In the case of his historical judgments, he has only minimally done so.

-CK

[_Runtu]

wtf is this? if you can't 'pass' his test, you can't comment on the Book of Abraham?

what a douchebag.

wait, can I be threatened with a lawsuit for saying that?

A certain apologist once told me I needed to do my homework before I could ask a question about Robert Ritner's take on the Book of Abraham, and he provided a list of essential readings, many of which were from John Gee. Anyway, I read the material and then went back to ask my questions. The only response I got was that Ritner's tone was inappropriate.

[_The Dude]

Pretty amazing, if indeed this was sparked by the specific criticism you outlined. Why wouldn't Gee just respond to that criticism? Any ideas?

I recall when William Schryver had that flap with Dan Vogel about the location of an item in the church archive. Can you imagine what an arrogant bastard Vogel would have looked like if he'd gone to the moderators to issue a comprehensive challenge on specialized (and not-relevant) turf? Instead, he did the right thing, and directly answered Will's inquiry. Simple as that.

I could be wrong. I'm not sure this is all about your, Celestial Kingdom. But if it is... LMAO.

[_Who Knows]

Dude - Perhaps you could do something similar regarding DNA? You know, just to show how ignorant and pathetic everyone is, while at the same time establishing your dominance as the final word on the board re DNA. And only those who pass the test can comment on any DNA related threads/posts. Then we critics can score it as a win.

woo-hoo, sounds like a plan!

[_CaliforniaKid]

Pretty amazing, if indeed this was sparked by the specific criticism you outlined. Why wouldn't Gee just respond to that criticism? Any ideas?

The same reason Will Schryver hasn't. Because he can't.

I could be wrong. I'm not sure this is all about your, Celestial Kingdom. But if it is... LMAO.

Maybe it is a little arrogant to assume it's about me. But there hasn't been much BoA-related stuff there lately except the thread I participated in. And he said somebody had pointed him there because of criticisms of him. As far as I know, I'm the only one over there who's criticizing him. I suspect he was pointed to that thread because somebody felt I was engaging in libelous slander and wanted Gee to either sue me or defend himself, or both.

[_Who Knows]

I remember Hauglid's FAIR presentation last year. He said how bad Gee felt because of all of the attacks he had undergone - and how unfair he thought it all was - and that he hadn't taken it very well.

He then said how Gee had made a mistake regarding the 2 ink theory, and that the 2 ink theory (that Gee promoted) was officially dead.

Maybe Gee should have undergone some sort of 'ink analysis' test before including it in his book? Or was it perhaps unfair for us ignorant critics to say his 2 ink theory was a bunch of bullcrap (since we hadn't taken any ink analysis test)?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Maybe Gee should have undergone some sort of 'ink analysis' test before including it in his book? Or was it perhaps unfair for us ignorant critics to say his 2 ink theory was a bunch of bullcrap (since we hadn't taken any ink analysis test)?

ROFL

Here's part of Gee's post (abbreviated with ellipses):

Occasionally, I have friends who direct my attention to this and other message boards where I am regularly vilified as incompetent by people who in some cases have not attended college, and usually masquerade behind pseudonyms. Yet, when I read their responses, I wonder about the competence of these critics. They remind me of something Nibley wrote long ago: "As if to prove that they have no intention of pursuing serious investigations, these people have conspicuously neglected to prepare themselves for any but the most localized research..." I demonstrate my knowledge and proficiency on a regular basis, but I never see the critics on the message boards at these events and thus see no demonstration of knowledge or proficiency from them.

So I am willing for the next month to conduct a little test of the basic Egyptological skills needed for an intelligent discussion of the Joseph Smith Papyri. I do not participate on these message boards and rarely even look at them. I will pose the questions through you, the moderators, requesting that you pin them for a month. Any who wish to demonstrate their skills may send their answers to the following to me at egyptiantest at byu.edu. All emails must include the person's real name, daytime phone number, and pseudonym under which they post to this board.

You think if I gave Gee my name, address, phone number, and pseudonym I would have a process server on my doorstep?

-CK