"2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Project

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

"2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Project

Post by _I have a question »

Abstract: Volume 4 of the Revelations and Translations series of the Joseph Smith Papers does not live up to the standards set in previous volumes. While the production values are still top notch, the actual content is substandard. Errors fill the volume, including upside-down photographs and numerous transcription errors beyond the more than two hundred places where the editors admitted they could not read the documents. For this particular volume, producing it incorrectly is arguably worse than not producing it at all.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... -stumbles/

Does Gee have an axe to grind?

Anything the editors say about Egyptian language, papyri, or characters is beyond their skill and training. It is regretful that although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints counts several faithful Egyptologists among its membership, the editors deliberately chose not to involve them in any serious way.
In sum, this volume does not display the care one has come to expect from the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Because the number of errors involved is so high, nothing in this volume should be trusted without careful checking. This means the serious researcher is not in a better position than he was before the volume was published.

Hell hath no fury like an Egyptologist scorned? Or is this further evidence of a wider internal conflict? Perhaps Doctor Scratch will offer his view...
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: "2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Proje

Post by _Philo Sofee »

My impression is Gee is fuming about not being consulted or being one of the editors so he is going to carp about lots of irrelevant little errors in order to do a sleight of hand move away from the overall issue that his own theories are not in this book concerning the Book of Abraham. Gee was ignored by the Joseph Smith Papers Project and he is not happy about it. All he can do is complain.

And then again, Alan Watts idea comes to mind when it comes to Mormon apologetics wherein they fight each other over every unique Joseph Smith Scripture in existence. "Only doubtful truths need defence." (The Wisdom of Insecurity, Pantheon Books, 1951: 10)

And everything in Mormonism is being defended. All their unique doctrines, history, and scriptures. Oh the things that make ya go hmmmmmm.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: "2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Proje

Post by _Shulem »

John Gee wrote:Abstract: Volume 4 of the Revelations and Translations series of the Joseph Smith Papers does not live up to the standards set in previous volumes. While the production values are still top notch, the actual content is substandard. Errors fill the volume, including upside-down photographs and numerous transcription errors beyond the more than two hundred places where the editors admitted they could not read the documents. For this particular volume, producing it incorrectly is arguably worse than not producing it at all.


Although the ERRORS may be annoying and cause a serious researcher to stumble a little it should be pointed out that such ERRORS are nothing compared to these:

Fig. 1. The Angel of the Lord.

Fig. 2. Abraham fastened upon an altar.

Fig. 3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.

Fig. 4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.

Fig. 5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.

Fig. 6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.

Fig. 7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.

Fig. 8. The idolatrous god of Korash.

Fig. 9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.

Fig. 10. Abraham in Egypt.

Fig. 11. Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.

Fig. 12. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.

Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.

Fig. 2. Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an altar, which he had built unto the Lord.

Fig. 3. Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed.

Fig. 4. Answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens; also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand; answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time.

Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.

Fig. 6. Represents this earth in its four quarters.

Fig. 7. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.

Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.

Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.

Fig. 10. Also.

Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.

Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the own due time of the Lord.

The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.

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
.


Quit your bitching, John!

:mad:

John Gee wrote:The document on p. 47 is upside down. The document on p. 49 is upside


Upside down? How about the writing that's upside down in Facsimile No. 2, compliments of Joseph damned Smith?

:mad:

Quit your bitching, John. Them guys can't be any worse than the prophet who touched up the Hypocephalus with upside down writing. Right?

:wink:
_Physics Guy
_Emeritus
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:38 pm

Re: "2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Proje

Post by _Physics Guy »

Gee might just be miffed and the errors might not matter to most readers, but it could also be that the JSP people got out of their depth and messed up. Any way to get a second opinion?
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: "2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Proje

Post by _consiglieri »

Two words:

Brian Hauglid.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: "2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Proje

Post by _Shulem »

consiglieri wrote:Two words:

Brian Hauglid.


And,

Matthew C. Godfrey, Managing Historian
Robin Scott Jensen, Associate Managing Historian
Riley M. Lorimer, Associate Editorial Manager
Brent M. Rogers, Associate Managing Historian
Nathan N. Waite, Associate Editorial Manager

Surely the staff of those involved with the Joseph Smith Papers Project prayed and sought guidance from the Lord on who to consult and how to proceed? Surely the Lord answered their prayers? Did he not?

Doesn't John Gee believe in the power of prayer? It seems he doesn't. This is a red flag. This is a sign that he's losing faith in the institution in which he serves.

:wink:
_empirious
_Emeritus
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:33 pm

Re: "2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Proje

Post by _empirious »

I have a question wrote:
Abstract: Volume 4 of the Revelations and Translations series of the Joseph Smith Papers does not live up to the standards set in previous volumes. While the production values are still top notch, the actual content is substandard. Errors fill the volume, including upside-down photographs and numerous transcription errors beyond the more than two hundred places where the editors admitted they could not read the documents. For this particular volume, producing it incorrectly is arguably worse than not producing it at all.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... -stumbles/

Does Gee have an axe to grind?

Anything the editors say about Egyptian language, papyri, or characters is beyond their skill and training. It is regretful that although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints counts several faithful Egyptologists among its membership, the editors deliberately chose not to involve them in any serious way.
In sum, this volume does not display the care one has come to expect from the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Because the number of errors involved is so high, nothing in this volume should be trusted without careful checking. This means the serious researcher is not in a better position than he was before the volume was published.

Hell hath no fury like an Egyptologist scorned? Or is this further evidence of a wider internal conflict? Perhaps Doctor Scratch will offer his view...


Gee is expressing sour grapes here. I have it on good authority that Gee was consulted on the volume. It was sent out to almost two dozen people for review. While everyone else looked at the book as a major contribution, albeit sometimes accompanied by some constructive critiques, Gee's review was the most negative and in very odd, idiosyncratic ways. I'm informed that his only contribution was adding a few sources he thought should be added.

Gee just can't stand the heat this volume brings out against his dubious, unsubstantiated theories. Should be interesting to see how this all plays out in the land of Mopologetics.
The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Certainty is missing the point entirely. Anne Lamott, Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: "2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Proje

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Physics Guy wrote:Gee might just be miffed and the errors might not matter to most readers, but it could also be that the JSP people got out of their depth and messed up. Any way to get a second opinion?


What exactly would you be looking for in a second opinion?

Robert Ritner has pretty much answered any Egyptological response Gee & Muhlestein have put forth and it isn't pretty if you're placing any faith in Gee's ability as an Egyptologist.

Ironically Gee is criticizing the JSP's editors for doing exactly what he himself does, that is, venture outside his own field of expertise. Gee's latest offering in the Book of Abraham, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham is filled with Gee's offering as a 19th century historian, one he is woefully incompetent at, and one which Dan Vogel has taken him to the woodshed over. See here.

Furthermore Gee hasn't let his incompetence in the field of basic math prevent him from making a fool out of himself in trying to estimate the length of the missing portion of the Hor scroll. See here for a very funny (you have to be familiar with Gee's initial rebuttal to get the jokes) response to Gee's rebutal of Cook and Smith's original article on the length of the Hor scroll.

Finally as IHAQ has not so subtlety pointed out in his OP title, we are dealing with Jon Gee here, the one who basically lied about the lack of two different colors of ink on the Ta Sherrit Min scroll thinking no one had access to color copies to check his claims in order to defend his defense of how and when the KEP was created.

So, perhaps none of the editors for this volume was an Egyptologist, but the reality is that the Egyptological questions surrounding the Joseph Smith Egyptians artifacts are pretty much settled. We do not need anyone to translate any of the extant documents, Ritner has done that while pointing out how bad previous attempts by hacks like Nibley and others were, we don't need an Egyptologist to tell us how long the missing scroll is since that is a mathematical question anyways, and we don't need an Egyptologist to tell us what the KEP represents, since that is by and large a historical question.

In the end what we have here is a blatantly obvious offering by Gee trying to defend the need to have an Egyptologist (or two) employed by BYU and an endowed chair that no longer serves any purpose. Gee is obviously frustrated that high level LDS historians no longer support his outdated pet theories about how Joseph Smith translated from a scroll we no longer have which is necessary to justify his position as a Mormon apologist and maybe even a BYU employee.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: "2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Proje

Post by _Shulem »

Fence Sitter wrote:In the end what we have here is a blatantly obvious offering by Gee trying to defend the need to have an Egyptologist (or two) employed by BYU and an endowed chair that no longer serves any purpose. Gee is obviously frustrated that high level LDS historians no longer support his outdated pet theories about how Joseph Smith translated from a scroll we no longer have which is necessary to justify his position as a Mormon apologist and maybe even a BYU employee.


Are you saying that Gee's job at BYU is on the line?

If current church leaders don't support his pet theories moreover the missing roll theory then why bother keeping him on board? BYU doesn't need Egyptologists if the catalyst theory becomes official. They can take their skills elsewhere. The church shouldn't be wasting money on them.
_jfro18
_Emeritus
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:08 pm

Re: "2 Inks" Gee criticises scholarly standards of JSP Proje

Post by _jfro18 »

I think this one statement sums up why Gee is so angry, from Hauglid himself:

Image
Post Reply