John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_Trevor]

I hope to present a paper next year at the SBL.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Just playing along, Dr. P!

[_Trevor]

Ahem.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I hope to present a paper next year at the SBL.

AAR/SBL proposals are typically due in the spring. They must be submitted for evaluation to the individual program unit (e.g. "The Study of Islam," "Religion, Politics, and the State," "The Polanyi Society," "The International Society for Chinese Philosophy," "The North American Hinduism Consultation," etc.)

Pick the one you're interested in and submit a proposal. Good luck!

[_Sethbag]

Dr. Peterson, I'm curious what Dr. Gee's non-mormon peers in the world of Egyptology think about his defense of the Book of Abraham on Egyptological grounds. Have you got any idea? I mean, naturally, other than Robert Ritner.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson, I'm curious what Dr. Gee's non-mormon peers in the world of Egyptology think about his defense of the Book of Abraham on Egyptological grounds. Have you got any idea? I mean, naturally, other than Robert Ritner.

I'm sure that, without many exceptions, if any, they would be skeptical of Joseph Smith and his claims, both with regard to the Book of Abraham and generally. I doubt that they know very much about the subject.

Dr. Gee's Book of Abraham-related Egyptological work -- he does Egyptology that isn't related to the Book of Abraham too, of course -- is rarely explicitly about the Book of Abraham, and sometimes it's not even about the Joseph Smith Papyri. (Though sometimes it is; he recently presented a paper on the Joseph Smith Papyri at the annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt that, notwithstanding the criticisms here, I plan to publish in the FARMS Review.) But he's going about his work, in this respect, in what I regard as exactly the right way: He's running arguments by his Egyptological peers that are important for his Book of Abraham work, and he's doing it without the distraction of theological claims, etc. This way, he builds up a complex network of peer-reviewed arguments that have passed muster with Egyptologists, even if they are eternally fated to reap derision from people on the so-called "Recovery" board, etc.

[_beastie]

I'm sure that, without many exceptions, if any, they would be skeptical of Joseph Smith and his claims, both with regard to the Book of Abraham and generally. I doubt that they know very much about the subject.

What?!?!?!??!?! Are you saying that Gee's professional work is actually not the same thing as his Mormon apologia?

Well, now, how odd. The criticisms here have solely been about his Mormon apologia, and you responded:

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.

What an odd, irrelevant comment to make is, as you just asserted, Gee's professional work is not the same as his Mormon apologia. It's almost as if you're saying possessing a degree insulates one from all criticism on any topic, (except for by other degreed individuals, of course) and you couldn't possibly be making such a poor argument, what with your degree and all.

I'm curious as to the point of your apologia. If critics can't possibly be qualified to critique apologia without a certain degree, no matter how much study they've put into the subject, then how can equally unqualified believers be qualified to recognize that the arguments in the apologia are sound? Or do you agree with what I've long suspected - the purpose of apologia is not to produce materials that members can actually process and recognize as sound or unsound, but rather to produce academic-sounding material that reassures members, whether or not they're qualified to assess the soundness of the particular arguments, that "really smart and educated" people believe in these things, so you can feel good about believing in it, too!

[_Paul Osborne]

Dr. Peterson, I'm curious what Dr. Gee's non-mormon peers in the world of Egyptology think about his defense of the Book of Abraham on Egyptological grounds. Have you got any idea? I mean, naturally, other than Robert Ritner.

I'm sure that, without many exceptions, if any, they would be skeptical of Joseph Smith and his claims, both with regard to the Book of Abraham and generally. I doubt that they know very much about the subject.

Dr. Gee's Book of Abraham-related Egyptological work -- he does Egyptology that isn't related to the Book of Abraham too, of course -- is rarely explicitly about the Book of Abraham, and sometimes it's not even about the Joseph Smith Papyri. (Though sometimes it is; he recently presented a paper on the Joseph Smith Papyri at the annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt that, notwithstanding the criticisms here, I plan to publish in the FARMS Review.) But he's going about his work, in this respect, in what I regard as exactly the right way: He's running arguments by his Egyptological peers that are important for his Book of Abraham work, and he's doing it without the distraction of theological claims, etc. This way, he builds up a complex network of peer-reviewed arguments that have passed muster with Egyptologists, even if they are eternally fated to reap derision from people on the so-called "Recovery" board, etc.

Egyptologist Juan Castillos told me that Egyptologists, including himself, do not favor John Gee's Book of Abraham apologetics at all. However, with that said, there is little problem with LDS people taking matters on by faith and spiritual interpretations, but to prove the Book of Abraham papyrus saga correct through conventional means is distrastrous. This is where John Gee gets a failing grade. His peers are laughing at him.

I hope that answers your question, Sethbag. Daniel Peterson walked around it and avoided the real point of the matter - and that real point gives John Gee an F. It's amazing to me that Peterson can't just come out and say that. School teachers know darn well how to grade someones' work based on conventional knowledge that is accepted by the institutions of higher learning. As I said, Gee gets an F from his peers when it comes to Book of Abraham apologetics.

Paul O

[_dartagnan]

I'm sure that, without many exceptions, if any, they would be skeptical of Joseph Smith and his claims, both with regard to the Book of Abraham and generally. I doubt that they know very much about the subject.

Well duh!

Since these scholars don't know anything about the subject Gee is speaking on, why would it make a hill of beans to keep pointing out that he is presenting it to them?

This is just show. The meeting appears to be enormous, allowing dozens upon dozens of speakers around the world to comment on just about whatever they want. Yes, I am sure some are rejected, but good grief, how practical is it to have a meeting bigger than this? This gathering makes a boring testimony sacrament seem brief and entertaining.

Just because Gee is able to speak in academic settings doesn't make the subject of his talk academically respectable, which seems to be the point behindyour constant reiteration of his academic itenerary. After all, since nobody knows anything about it, why would we assume his peers accepted his talk because it had an ounce of credibility?

People like Gee and Bokovoy are covert artists. They hide their theological apologetics from their peers and then once they've gained entrance into the Ivory Tower, they think this alone will validate 50% of their arguments. This is what bothered Ritner. Gee hid his apologetics from him, and for good reason. In school he would have had been peer reviewed and we all know Ritner would have made mincemeat of his apologetics. So Gee waited for the right time to unleash his apologetic agenda. After he was given his Ph.D. when accountability was never to be seen again. I mean let's be real. It isn't like anyone in the audience can question or challenge Gee as he is speaking in these meetings. It is a free pass to blather away, all the while chalking it down on your resume as another presentation given among scholars. But it says nothing about the validity of his scholarship and I doubt SBL would say they stand by the arguments presented by all presenters. Of course they wouldn't.

Likewise, does anyone here really believe the JBL team knows anything about David Bokovoy's theological agenda? Is it known to anyone in the academic community that he personally believes God is a physical being who literally has sex, and that just maybe, that might have something to do with his JBL article they are going to publish, whereby he argues the "biblical God" is a sexual being? Bokovoy's passion isn't Hebrew. His passon is about apologetics - proving the Church true through a knowledge of Hebrew. This is evidence in the themes he talks about. Each and every one is essentially apologetic in nature. Bokovoy has attacked Evangelical scholarship as being little more than worthless crap. He says it is too theologically driven, which makes him an utter hypocrite. Yet, I know Evangelical scholars who don't start their academic careers with theological/apologetic papers/presentations. Nor is most of their early work published in apologetic venues such as FARMS and FAIR message boards. Mormon apologetics is getting a foothole in the field of scholarship by being quiet about it. Eventually it will be considered just as meaningless as "scholarship" coming from Ministers working at Bible colleges.

Dr. Gee's Book of Abraham-related Egyptological work -- he does Egyptology that isn't related to the Book of Abraham too, of course -- is rarely explicitly about the Book of Abraham, and sometimes it's not even about the Joseph Smith Papyri.

Exactly the point Dan. His scholarship is about the Book of Abraham, just enough so the two of you can say the Book of Abraham is being discussed in scholarly settings, but it is not about the Book of Abraham to a significant degree in which any scholar would be able to see the apologetic crap that it is. It isn't enough to make observers investigate into the whole Book of Abraham controversy. This is apologetic scholarship by design, which makes Gee a covert artist. When will he stand up in the academic community and state his convictions, his obvious bias and his apologetic agenda, as Brian Hauglid was brave enough to do at the FAIR conference?

Gee and Bokovoy remind me of a couple of missionary companions I had who were aspiring to be scholars for the sole purpose of proving the Church true. They make no secret about this. "I'm gonna get a Ph.D in Greek... no Hebrew is better because that is the Old Testament and that represents more of the Bible.... yea but the New Testament is where Jesus comes in and the Church is based on Jesus....but anti-Mormons say Genesis doesn't support the temple.. etc." These guys sat around and argued about which field of scholarship would better serve the Church. They had no particular passion for either field of expertise. It was all about saving the Church from a world of criticism. They were smart to be sure, and quite capable of earning doctorates in whatever field they chose. The apologetic material produced so early by bother Gee and Bokovoy makes it clear to me they had their theological agenda written down, probably as early as high school.

by the way, that web link was enormous. I knew there was an explanation why I could not find Gee, which is why I asked. The webpage never finished loading apparently. I still can't get it to load all the way. Gee must be mentioned down at the bottom somewhere.

[_Trevor]

Having attended the SBL/AAR before, and having spoken at the meetings of other professional organizations myself, I can say that a scholar generally does not present utter tripe before a room full of academic peers. People are generally not shy about taking you on when you propose something that is untenable. While I have seen boring and pointless papers before, I have rarely seen anything that was simply absurd. Sure, people may disagree, even vehemently, but this is usually not because there is no shred of academic respectability to what is being argued.

It is one thing to criticize Gee's apologetic efforts, which we do know, but until one has some frame of reference in things Egyptological, beyond, say, what another Egyptologist might say of Gee's work on the Book of Abraham, it is probably best not to attack his Egyptology work absent that expertise. Gee may do perfectly wonderful work in this area. I'll refrain from comment, since I am a Classicist, not an Egyptologist.

And, thanks for the well wishing, Dan. I hope to be on a panel for the Redescribing Graeco-Roman Antiquity project. Since I am applying to the panel, instead of hoping to be placed on some as yet formed session, I think my chances are pretty good.