Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

[_Shulem]

Regardless, this is a terrible blow to Book of Abraham apologetics. It seems that even the Lord's University has given up on treating the Book of Abraham like legitimate scripture.

Defending the Book of Abraham has been a nightmare scenario for church scholars. That task would have been easier had not the original fragments been discovered and returned to the church under the light of public scrutiny. But the fragments surfaced and many hearts raced and thumped when it was realized that there simply was no legitimate way to defend Smith's translations. Theories were introduced and a broad spectrum of ideas were entertained. But in the end, nothing could vindicate Joseph Smith's claims.

I have to wonder if we will see the Facsimiles disappear in the next edition of the Book of Abraham. The Facsimiles have to go. They are a thorn in the side of the church. I think we'll see an expanded introduction of the Book of Abraham (likely taken directly from the essay) in a vain attempt to generalize the work of translation as a revelation from the Spirit rather than an actual technical translation converting one language into another.

No matter what the church does, however, the Book of Abraham will haunt it to its deathbed just like polygamy.

[_Physics Guy]

Who is John Gee? I know roughly who he is in Mormon apologetics, but I thought I read something somewhere that seemed to indicate he was also a significant Egyptologist. As I recollect that claim was written by Gee himself, but I assumed it was defensible. Since his job position is not only at BYU but in the Maxwell Institute, I presumed that Mormon-related work was a fair chunk of his career output, but I figured he also had a decent career going in mainstream Egyptology. Having published "over eighty papers", as his brief MI blurb says, sounds pretty good.

His Wikipedia entry, however, only lists 45 published papers. That's still not bad—several historic titans of science have published fewer—but of the 45 papers listed on Wikipedia almost all have such a strong Mormon focus that I can't imagine any mainstream Egyptologists caring at all about them.

The latest publication date in the Wikipedia list is 2011. Did Wikipedia stop updating Gee's pubs list then, or did Gee just stop publishing?

I'm no Egyptologist, but the few pure Egyptology articles listed by Gee on Wikipedia mostly seem to be published in somewhat obscure journals. Göttinger Miszellen, for example, is maintained by a real and serious academic institution (the University of Göttingen) but it seems to be just a series of working papers. "Miszellen" ("Miscellanies") is not a title one gives to a flagship journal.

The Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities only ever had five local chapters, four of them in Canada, and its Journal seems to have stopped publishing in 2011. Three of Gee's non-Mormon papers were published in it and he also edited the journal at some point. That editorship seems to be one of his academic distinctions. Okay, I've never edited any journal, but I'm not sure how big a distinction that one is.

So I'm wondering how much credibility Gee really has as an Egyptologist. Is he really a full-time Mormon apologist who occasionally dips back into Egyptology? If so his academic status might be more precarious than one would expect for somebody holding a named research chair.

[_Shulem]

So I'm wondering how much credibility Gee really has as an Egyptologist.

John Gee is a competent Egyptologist having a full knowledge of the discipline. Undoubtedly, he is fully qualified and has mastered Egyptology to great expectations.

The problem is Gee's apologetics in defending the Book of Abraham. That is his problem and stumbling block.

[_Symmachus]

Who is John Gee? I know roughly who he is in Mormon apologetics, but I thought I read something somewhere that seemed to indicate he was also a significant Egyptologist. As I recollect that claim was written by Gee himself, but I assumed it was defensible. Since his job position is not only at BYU but in the Maxwell Institute, I presumed that Mormon-related work was a fair chunk of his career output, but I figured he also had a decent career going in mainstream Egyptology. Having published "over eighty papers", as his brief MI blurb says, sounds pretty good.

I'm not an Egyptologist either, though I've worked a lot with Egyptian and Coptic and spend a lot of time with Egyptologists, and I've seen one of Gee's articles cited often enough. My perspective on how Gee is perceived is anecdotal, but there aren't very many Egyptologists anyway (there's only a dozen or so places where you can actually study Egyptology), so Gee is known because everyone is known in a small and dwindling field. Gee is basically thought of as eccentric, but not a loon. Of course, even someone like John Darnell wears an Indiana Jones hat and dresses (and behaves) like an early 20th century colonialist when he's in Egypt, and while Gee's teacher (or whatever that was) Robert Ritner seems to be a very nice person, I'm not sure most people would want to be stuck in an elevator with him. The Egyptological standards of "loon" and "eccentric" likely deviate from the norm as it is. Nothing wrong with eccentricity, but I think it marks a fair number of people in the field as it is, so when Gee is thought of as eccentric in that field...

In any case, I think Shulem is correct here: Gee is highly competent as an Egyptologist, particularly on the philological side, and he's clearly a very intelligent person, so certain of his apologetic publications seem quite dishonest to me (see comments this thread). That is too bad.

I do wonder, Doctor Scratch, whether Gee has just lost interest in Book of Abraham apologetics and is looking for a position in BYU that wouldn't require that of him anymore. His most recent book was just an updated version of a pamphlet he wrote 20 years ago, and as you'll remember, his FAIR talk last year was less than inspiring and seemed like a surrender to boredom, if not to the critics arguments. Or maybe the funding for the chair is not secure anymore. Whatever the reason for any potential move from the New MI, Gee doesn't seem to do much apologetic work anymore anyway. If he does move, then the relevant signals will be whether he is replaced and then who replaces him.

[_Physics Guy]

Even one frequently cited article is something, I grant. Not everyone has that.

But isn't "competent" rather faint praise for somebody in a named research chair? I'm not expecting Gee to be an idiot or a loon but I'm wondering how much he's really contributed to Egyptology post-PhD. How likely is it that the MI regards him as dead wood?

[_Chap]

Gee is basically thought of as eccentric, but not a loon. [...] while Gee's teacher (or whatever that was) Robert Ritner seems to be a very nice person, I'm not sure most people would want to be stuck in an elevator with him.

I do not think Ritner would at all like being cited as having any association with Gee.

As has been discussed on this board at length, he asked to be removed from Gee's PhD panel at Yale,* and has since published criticisms of Gee's work.


*A fact which (of course) DCP tried to use to suggest that Ritner had been removed for some unstated misdemeanour. Ritner, on learning of this, threatened to sue. The suggestions have not been repeated. Dr Scratch will have all the details.

[_Analytics]

Even one frequently cited article is something, I grant. Not everyone has that.

But isn't "competent" rather faint praise for somebody in a named research chair? I'm not expecting Gee to be an idiot or a loon but I'm wondering how much he's really contributed to Egyptology post-PhD. How likely is it that the MI regards him as dead wood?

In what is clearly an allusion to Gee, Robert Ritner said in the introduction to The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition

The rediscovery of the primary documents that inspired, but in no way corroborate, a canonical Book of Mormon theology has resulted in more than a generation of confrontation between Egyptological scholars and Mormon traditionalists. Whereas earlier apologists had condemned Egyptologists for not translating the defectively copied hieroglyphs of the woodcuts, new translations of the actual documents were even more disturbing. Some religious Mormons have sought Egytological degrees merely to pursue the argument with scholarly status. Attempts to salvage the Book of Abraham over the years have been varied, creative, and ultimately desperate:

It then goes on to list several "creative and ultimately desperate" schools of Book of Abraham apologetics, with references to Gee and Nibley in the footnotes.

Despite his competency, you have to wonder how employable he is outside of Provo.

[_lostindc]

My understanding is that MI is thought to be heading back towards it's mission prior to the violent removal of DCP et al. Of course my understanding is coming from DCP. I think I overheard that DCP is claiming that Apostle Jeff Holland is upset about the current MI not implementing faith promoting studies.

[Guest]

I'm sorry guys but I don't buy this at all. Didn't Elder Holland just recently give a thorough mud-hole stomping to the New MI for not being faithful disciple scholars? Wasn't the SeN comment section alive with speculation about a reversal of power even? In particular, Midgley seemed very confident the end was near for the new MI.

Exactly. This sure seems like a complete and total rebuke of all things Mopologetic by BYU and the Bretheren. There is nobody left now.

I feel a little sad for John Gee. Because he has spent his entire career focused on the silly and destructive field of Mopology, he is now largely unemployable.

Mopology is a harsh mistress. It's unfortunate that John Gee had to learn this valuable lesson too late in life.



ETA There might be a silver lining in all of this. I just found out that Olive Garden in Provo is now hiring. https://www.landyourlife.com/olive-garden-careers/

[_Shulem]

I do not think Ritner would at all like being cited as having any association with Gee.

As has been discussed on this board at length, he asked to be removed from Gee's PhD panel at Yale,* and has since published criticisms of Gee's work.

They don't like each other. Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics is offensive to virtually every Egyptologist on the planet. But it's a far cry from suggesting that Ritner thinks Gee is incompetent within his discipline when it comes to conventional Egyptology that has nothing to do with apologetics. Granted, no Egyptologist is perfect or walks on water but Gee is most certainly, assuredly, competent. Period.