John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_dartagnan]

It seems that we can add the relevant faculty of Brandeis University to the list of people (already including the relevant faculty of BYU, Berkeley, and Yale) who need to consult with some of the anonymous posters here in order to find out who's competent and intellectually honest and who's not.

Why do you continually play stupid?

You're not, so why act like it?

You know very well that these institutions do not care one whit about apologetics of any religion, nor do they feel the need to interrogate their prospective Ph.D candidates to determine how they will use their would be status as "doctor." Ritner, for example, had no idea Gee was an aspiring apologist who had been going through the required motions for "respectability" in Utah.

The fact is one can be completely capable of learning a foreign language, yet completely clueless when it comes to apologetics and debate. Putting these kinds of Ph.Ds in the ring is just for show, and ultimately, is counter-productive because you would have been better off letting a non-expert take the fall for these kinds of lame arguments. The Ph.Ds are just glamour used by you and others, to distract the careful reader from their inability to really produce compelling, valid arguments. It is kinda like how used-car salesmen make sure the cars get a good waxing before being rolled out on the lot. It looks nice from a distance, until you buy it and you're stuck on the side of the road at 3am with a busted head-gasket.

But that sure is a nice wax job, huh?

This is the kind of thought that goes through your mind everytime you feel it necessary to remind us these guys have doctorates.

Who cares what embarrassments they have already become? They have Ph.Ds and that has to count for something, right?

Amazing how you think.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Here's the abstract:

An Egyptian Version of Atramhasis?
Program Unit: Assyriology and the Bible
John Gee, Brigham Young University
An Egyptian ritual text parallels the Atramhasis text in various details, and thus also parallels the Biblical Flood narrative, sometimes in ways not reflected in the Mesopotamian version. The Egyptian text survives in five versions all of which are securely dated. None of them dates before the Amarna period, but allusions to the text are found in texts dating seven hundred years earlier. I will examine both the parallels and differences between the texts and discuss the problems that the date of the manuscripts presents for interpreting the parallels.

Why don't you guys simply subscribe to Göttinger Miszellen and a few such Egyptological journals, and read what Dr. Gee writes? Or attend some Egyptological conferences?

Come on, just one BoA-related reference is all I want. Just one.

Professor Gee is giving a paper in San Diego this November at the annual joint meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, concerning, if I recall correctly, the possibility of there being an Egyptian version of Atramhasis. Perhaps you should go. Get there early, though. Whenever Professor Gee speaks, surging crowds of scholars arrive in party mode, dressed in clown costumes, with kazoos, confetti, and spitwads. He's quite simply the most ludicrous show in academia, and seats are at a premium.

What does an Egyptian version of a Mesopotamian flood story have to do with the Book of Abraham? Unless, of course, Dr. Gee intends to suggest that the flood story may have been transmitted to the Egyptians by Egyptus, the female founder of Egypt. Now seeing him make that suggestion at SBL would be well worth the price of admission.

I suspect, though, that he's saving that particular claim for a less critical forum, like the FARMS Review.

-Chris

[_evolving]

Professor Gee is giving a paper in San Diego this November at the annual joint meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, concerning, if I recall correctly, the possibility of there being an Egyptian version of Atramhasis. Perhaps you should go.

I'm just curious. Why isn't John Gee listed in the meeting's abstract?

http://www.sbl-site.org/Congresses/Cong ... eetingId=7

He is there -- just found it ---

An Egyptian Version of Atramhasis?
Program Unit: Assyriology and the Bible
John Gee, Brigham Young University

An Egyptian ritual text parallels the Atramhasis text in various details, and thus also parallels the Biblical Flood narrative, sometimes in ways not reflected in the Mesopotamian version. The Egyptian text survives in five versions all of which are securely dated. None of them dates before the Amarna period, but allusions to the text are found in texts dating seven hundred years earlier. I will examine both the parallels and differences between the texts and discuss the problems that the date of the manuscripts presents for interpreting the parallels.

[_dartagnan]

I thought Holy cow! that would be cool to be there in San Diego attending that conference and possibly learn something -

you thought - man I better check the conference abstract to see if if DCP is blowing smoke again ??

Actually I didn't think that at all. I was just curious about it and was wondering what the requirements were and how many scholars were going to be giving presentations. From the list, it looks like every flippin scholar this side of the Mississippi will be giving a presentation. Requirements involve membership and a record of participation at the events.

Dan would have us believe the requirements have something to do with an ability to produce stellar arguments.

When I saw Gee wasn't listed, I decided to ask Dan about this apparent contradiction. I suppose he could be a late addition

[_Daniel Peterson]

Curses! Foiled again!

Yet another one of my stupid attempts to deceive has come crashing down.

I was about to go even further and to claim that John Gee will be presenting a paper entitled "An Egyptian Version of Atramhasis?" in session S19-55 ("Assyriology and the Bible"), which begins at 1 PM on Monday, 19 November 2007, and that his paper is listed on page 83 of the printed program of the 2007 annual joint AAR/SBL meeting. In fact, I was going to press my luck by saying that I had just noticed that BYU's Kent Jackson is listed (on the very same page) as presenting a paper entitled "The Bible Translations of Noah Webster, Alexander Campbell, and Joseph Smith: Three Nineteenth-Century American Bible Translations in Context" in session S19-58 ("Bible Translation").

But you would be rightly suspicious of the first claim, and I could never, ever, hope to get away with so outlandish a claim as the second.

(You know? Exchanges such as this one illustrate quite adequately why I would never attempt to engage in a serious academic discussion on this message board.)

[_CaliforniaKid]

Great job, Dan. You win again! Why did I ever think my assessment of Gee's scholarship could stand up to the rigorous analysis of Daniel C. Peterson? His magnifying glass misses no detail! If only I were as smart as you, I would see that whenever a forum member makes a mistake it means we're all idiots and the church is true! If only I were as smart as you, I would see that a P.hD can do no wrong (unless that P.hD is a critic or disaffected Mormon)!

Unfortunately, I'm not as smart as you. So I'm still going to hell. Or outer darkness, as it were.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, the AAR/SBL is a perfectly enormous meeting, with many thousands attending. Many paper proposals are rejected; the vast majority of those in attendance are not presenting. (I myself will simply be attending this year; I presented a paper last year.)

[_Trevor]

So there is to be no discussion of the review itself?

Sigh.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Great job, Dan. You win again! Why did I ever think my assessment of Gee's scholarship could stand up to the rigorous analysis of Daniel C. Peterson? His magnifying glass misses no detail! If only I were as smart as you, I would see that whenever a forum member makes a mistake it means we're all idiots and the church is true! If only I were as smart as you, I would see that a P.hD can do no wrong (unless that P.hD is a critic or disaffected Mormon)!

Unfortunately, I'm not as smart as you. So I'm still going to hell. Or outer darkness, as it were.

You're blathering, CK. Please stop. It's embarrassing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So there is to be no discussion of the review itself?

Sigh.

No. There is not. I've prevented you from discussing it.