Seems quite scholarly and benign, right? Given what ensues, though, you'd think that somebody completely other than Gee wrote this abstract. (I'm guessing Jeff Lindsay had a hand in this one.) But the editorial heavy-hand didn't seem to make it to the rest of the essay. Just take a look at the way that Gee is practically snarling with rage in some paragraphs, such as this one:Abstract: For many theories about the Book of Abraham, the Egyptian Alphabet documents are seen as the key to understanding the translation process. While the original publication of those documents allows many researchers access to the documents for the first time, careful attention to the Joseph Smith Papers as a whole and the practices of Joseph Smith’s scribes in particular allows for improvements in the date, labeling, and understanding of the historical context of the Egyptian Alphabet documents.This essay supports the understanding of these documents found in the other volumes of the Joseph Smith Papers that the Egyptian Alphabet documents are an incidental by-product of the translation process rather than an essential step in that process.
What?? LOL! "pushed by anti-Mormons"? Uh, isn't that the pre-eminent theory among "serious" LDS scholars? And what support does Gee have for the claim that "The Church accommodates either of the latter two theories [but not the first one, we assume?]"? Is there an official statement from the Brethren on this? Because if there isn't, then what gives him the right to declare certainty on doctrinal matters like this? (Elsewhere, he repeatedly uses the phrase, "As we have seen..." Oh, have "we"? Once again, he fails to provide citations of any kind, though you pretty much have to assume that he's either (a) referring to his own, published Mopologetic works (in other words, the "Royal 'We'", meaning that his argument is entirely self-serving, and supported by a scholarly army of one, or, (b) there is either a legitimate or assumed audience out there that Gee is aware of/imagining, and Gee knows that this audience is familiar with whatever he's talking about. Like, this is addressed specifically to people who have sat through his FAIR Conference talks, and doesn't assume an audience beyond those people.Gee wrote:There are three basic theories about the original source text from which the Book of Abraham was translated. One is that Joseph Smith translated the text of the Book of Abraham from the papyri fragments we now have. Few members of the Church believe this theory, but it is pushed by anti-Mormons. The second theory is that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyri that we do not currently possess. The third theory is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham directly through revelation without possessing a text that contained the ancient text of the Book of Abraham. The Church accommodates either of the latter two theories. Presumably, the Joseph Smith Papers Project would be fine with either of the latter two options.
Regardless, the article is a classic "hit piece," devoid of evidence and mainly intended as polemical smear. Here's another great paragraph:
So, somehow, the Editors of the JSP--who were appointed by the Brethren themselves, if I'm not mistaken--are being depicted as "critics of the Church" by Gee. That is some hardcore chutzpah there--to criticize the Brethren's decision-making so brazenly, and in print! And under the guise of "peer review"! You really have to wonder what these guys have been smoking. It is only a matter of time before the butcher's bill comes around.Only if one assumes that Joseph Smith tried to translate the Book of Abraham from papyri that have survived does the program propounded by the editors make any kind of sense. Although attributing the Grammar and Alphabet to Joseph Smith is not required for Joseph Smith to have translated the Book of Abraham from the current papyri, adopting this theory makes it easier to argue for this option. This scenario is pushed by critics of the Church, and not many members of the Church believe it.
Assigning the Grammar and Alphabet to Joseph Smith (for which, incidentally, there is absolutely no evidence) undercuts the direct [Page 96]inspiration scenario. It also does not work well with the scenario that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from different papyri.
As we have seen, the editors of the documents promote a historical scenario in which Joseph Smith decided to produce an Egyptian Alphabet, and used it to produce the Book of Abraham. This is the scenario promoted by critics of the Church. Other possibilities, including the two theories most commonly held by members of the Church, are ignored.
In any event, Gee wraps this whole thing up with this remarkable paragraph:
Wow: "editorial bias...is demonstrable, pervasive, and systemic"? "Systemic"? Meaning, one assumes, that this tendency was the product of 'the System'? Hmmm... What might that refer to? What "system" is somehow tinkering with what is arguably the most significant official Church historical project that's ever been undertaken in the entire history of the Church?Such insights may be obtained by careful study of the documents if one does not subscribe, as the editors do, to anti-Mormon theories about the production of the Book of Abraham. The evidence of editorial bias in JSPRT4 is demonstrable, pervasive, and systemic. This bias opposes the interests of the Joseph Smith Papers institutional sponsors, the beliefs of most members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and (most importantly) the evidence of the manuscripts being published.
In any case, I highly recommend that you pop yourself some popcorn.
in that shocking theory, simply because they aren't involved in the most recent apologetics.