LOL!! So, this is a non-issue in the first place: critics don't see the Book of Abraham "as an ancient text," and Gee is unwilling to defend it as such here, and instead he moves on to defending an 'apparent anachronism' that isn't an anachronism after all? Do they really have so little to do these days that Gee is inventing things to provide Mopologetic explanations for? This really has to be a "lowest ebb"-type moment for "Interpreter." Maybe the powers that be are too busy with the latest film projects, or something like that?Gee wrote:It has been said that “the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it.”1 The same could be said of the Book of Abraham. One indication that critics do not bother to read the book is that, to date, none have bothered to comment on an apparent anachronism in the text. To spot it as an anachronism, one would have to take the Book of Abraham seriously as an ancient text, which most critics are unwilling to do. The purpose of this article is to discuss the apparent anachronism and why it is not one.
In any case, the rest of the article is pretty lame, with Gee explaining how there might have been "chariots" during the same rough time period that Abraham was alive. If he provided solid evidence for Abraham himself having actually been around any of these "chariots," I didn't catch it, but as Gee points out, to do that "one would have to take the Book of Abraham seriously as an ancient text," and there is no reason to do that. This really has to rank right up there among the worst/stupidest articles that the Mopologists have ever produced on the Book of Abraham.