Gee's Piece on 'Hearsay' and the Joseph Smith Papyri

[_DonBradley]

I've been asked privately to point out some of the areas in which I find John Gee apparently inept or disingenuous in his handling of the sources in his essay "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," published in The Disciple As Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, eds., Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo: FARMS, 2000).
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... chapid=268

I have not read the piece for about five years, and would be glad to accept legitimate correction on any of these points, but here are the areas in which I recall Gee either misrepresenting or grossly misinterpreting the sources:

Gee asserts that the astronomy material in the GAEL doesn't fit what Joseph Smith described having translated on October 1, 1835, when it plainly does. Joseph Smith's October 1 journal entry describes him working on the Egyptian alphabet with Oliver Cowdery and W. W. Phelps when "the system of astronomy was revealed." Dovetailing perfectly with this, an entry in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language recorded by all three of these men (the only one so recorded) introduces the familiar terms of the Abrahamic astronomy, such as Oliblish, Enish-go-on-dosh, and Kolob, offering astronomical translations for a few of them.

Gee pretends that the translation of the October 1 material wasn't part of the Alphabet project, when the journal entry explicitly says it was.

Gee claims that the astronomy material translated on October 1 must have accompanied the interpretation of Facsimile 2, and that, therefore, Joseph Smith must have already translated the Book of Abraham narrative that went along with the facsimile (i.e., narrative we don't have in our present book), when, in fact, 1) there is no reason but his assumption why the accompanying narrative need have been translated before Facsimile 2, 2) interpretation of Facsimile 2 is absent from all the Kirtland Egyptian Papers; 3) the interpretation of Facsimile 2 is demonstrably derived from the astronomy material of the GAEL, written in the hands of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and W. W. Phelps; 4) the astronomy material of Facsimile 2 was originally presented in the GAEL as a translation of characters at the beginning of the Book of Breathings (by Facsimile 1), so there was no need for Facsimile 2 to have been translated in order to account for the Kirtland "unfolding of the system of astronomy," facts which Gee spares his readers.

Gee flouts the plain meaning of Joseph Smith's 1842 journal when it reports that Smith was "translating" more of the Book of Abraham for publication in the second installment of Book of Abraham material in the Times and Seasons.

Gee repeats ad nauseam his claim that Joseph Smith translated the entire published Book of Abraham--and then some--by October 1, 1835 while keeping from his readers the fact that the first installment of T&S Book of Abraham material ends where the Kirtland Book of Abraham manuscripts end and that the second installment, published after Joseph Smith's journal records that he does considerable "translating and revising," picks up where the Kirtland manuscripts end, inconvenient facts which point to the second installment having been translated in Nauvoo, rather than in Kirtland.

This appears to me to be bungling or dishonesty. I'm unable to see how Gee could have both intelligently and honestly overlooked the relevance and significance of such facts to his arguments and for his readers. What am I missing?

Don

P.S. Another, minor point of relevance is Gee's use of the term "hearsay." "Hearsay" is inadmissable in a US court of law, but not in historical argument. Indeed, "hearsay" is not even a frequently invoked concept or category in the discipline of history, nor, one assumes, in that of Egyptology. So why does Gee import this concept, and the courts' objection to it, into historical argument, where it manifestly does not belong? Does Gee know enough about history to distinguish its methodology from that of the law?

[_CaliforniaKid]

These are some of the examples I would cite, as well.

Further, what he leaves out is as revealing as what he includes.

http://www.irr.org/mit/Abraham-autograph.pdf

[_DonBradley]

I started this thread to defend California Kid, rather than to attack John Gee. But, in the context of all the personal warfare on multiple boards, I think I was mistaken to imply that Gee was dishonest. More fairly and relevantly, I think I should say that I find John Gee in error on a number of basic points, such that I can understand why Celestial Kingdom drew the conclusion that Gee was, or might have been, dishonest in some of his writing. Ultimately, however, whether Gee has been dishonest or not is entirely irrelevant. The real issue is not his character but the quality of his arguments. I find them wanting, and would hope that further discussion on this thread (if there is any) would focus on the arguments themselves rather than on the author's possible intentions in making them.

Don