John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.

[_I have a question]

When the Book of Abraham was first published to the world in 1842, it was published as “a translation of some ancient records that have fallen into [Joseph Smith’s] hands from the catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called ‘The Book of Abraham, Written by his Own Hand, upon Papyrus.’” The resultant record was thus connected with the papyri once owned by Joseph Smith, though which papyrus of the four or five in his possession was never specified. Those papyri would likely interest only a few specialists except that they are bound up in a religious controversy. This controversy covers a number of interrelated issues, and an even greater number of theories have been put forward about these issues. Given the amount of information available, the various theories, and the variety of fields of study the subject requires, misunderstandings and misinformation often prevail. Introduction to the Book of Abraham makes reliable information accessible to the general reader.

https://bookstore.fairmormon.org/featur ... 8194439406

“Reliable information...” Okay, sure....

[_bcuzbcuz]

I wouldn't recommend buying a used car from John Gee. The car you would end up with would be "one of the four of five in his possession".

YMMV.

[_kairos]

Actually the Gee-man has been given a free pass in every interview as he spouts with a straight face that the answer is "missing papyrii"- and every interviewer justs says "Oh wonderful Professor/Dr Gee thank you you are so knowledgeable and we love your explanation blah blah blah!"

Gee has been slammed down so often outside the Mormon sphere( kevin graham caught him in lie after mistruth) that at one point he seemed so depressed and ready to hand off the Book of Abraham to a successor, so he could be the elder statesman and just blather at the top level. i guess he needed another pub to keep his chair at BYU so i would bet that this book will be a huge loser as he will continue to fake the truth.

john gee- move on nothing truthful to see here!

k

[_Runtu]

What really bothers me is that, when anyone points out where Gee has played fast and loose with the evidence, the other apologists call it character assassination. They then vilify the person without ever dealing with what that person said. Gee's track record speaks for itself, and it's not character assassination to note that he's manipulated sources, at the very least.

[_Shulem]

This controversy covers a number of interrelated issues

For example:

"Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

This certainly is controversial and definitely an issue.

greater number of theories have been put forward about these issues

None of these theories have been able to validate Joseph Smith's claim that a king's name is given in the characters above his head.

Given the amount of information available, the various theories, and the variety of fields of study the subject requires, misunderstandings and misinformation often prevail

Joseph Smith claimed that a king's name was written in the characters above the head. What is there to misunderstand? What misinformation prevails in hindering Egyptologist John Gee in confirming Joseph Smith's claim and reading the name for himself?

Introduction to the Book of Abraham makes reliable information accessible to the general reader

Fantastic! So, what is the king's name?

[_aussieguy55]

Does Gee respond to the analysis of his theory by Andrew Cooke and Chris Smith?

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf

[_Fence Sitter]

Does Gee respond to the analysis of his theory by Andrew Cooke and Chris Smith?

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf

John Gee responded with Formulas and Faith in which he demonstrates a complete lack understanding of basic mathematics. To which Cook and Smith responded with Formulas and Facts: A Response to John Gee

Seriously, if Gee had even bothered to have an undergrad student in math at BYU cross check what he said against what Cook & Smith wrote, Gee could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment, but it is clear Gee's response was only designed to be used as something the faithful could point to as a response, as long as they didn't bother to read it.

[_moksha]

If you view this book as an exercise in Let's Pretend, then there is no problem imagining a missing scroll written with some impossible to be actual Egyptian characters and hitherto unknown language structure. Once you feel comfortable, you might as well sit down with the White Rabbit for tea and read about the adventures of Abraham in Egypt as told to John Gee.

[_Shulem]

I'm sure that Chris Smith had fun and a certain amount of satisfaction in spending so much time and effort determining scroll length using mathematics and logical formulas. But, in the end, it's ultimately kind of pointless because it really just doesn't matter. Everyone can agree that there are some missing portions of papyrus but more importantly there is extant papyrus which was used by Joseph Smith to produce his Book of Abraham. Apologists have argued for the missing roll theory until blue in the face and they think they won. But, never, ever, has an apologist ever been able to refute or deny that Joseph Smith used the actual characters in the Facsimiles to produce the Explanations attached thereto. There is absolutely no question or doubt that Joseph Smith was looking at the very Egyptian characters written in the upper registers of Facsimile No. 3 when he gave the following so-called translations and revelations in revealing what the writing contained:


Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.

Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.

[_Shulem]

If you view this book as an exercise in Let's Pretend, then there is no problem imagining a missing scroll written with some impossible to be actual Egyptian characters and hitherto unknown language structure. Once you feel comfortable, you might as well sit down with the White Rabbit for tea and read about the adventures of Abraham in Egypt as told to John Gee.

I'd love to look John Gee square in the eyes and challenge him to identify the name of the king which is supposedly written in the characters above the head in Fig. 2. I'd ask him to please explain how a royal king's name is not contained within a cartouche. That's an absolute standard in literary Egyptian conventions. To deviate from that is just absolute nonsense. But, let's make one thing perfectly clear, Joseph Smith didn't know about the royal cartouche and had no idea that a king's name must be contained within a sacred iconic symbol of royal Egypt.

It's proof that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about and had no business attempting to convince his followers that he could read Egyptian. The whole thing was a sham!

But, I'm sure zerinus would disagree because he doesn't believe conventional Egyptology but embraces Joseph Smith's fairyland version of false Egyptology. Everything Joseph Smith ever said has been proven false.