Jump to content

Talk:John Gee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was Ritner associated with Gee's dissertation committee?

[edit]

The following sentence was removed because it relies on a poor source (internet forum posting):

While chairing Gee's dissertation committee at Yale, Ritner had resigned, which some speculate was related to Gee's involvement with Mormon studies. [Mister Scratch (May 20, 2008). "The Burden of Being Gee". Mormon Discussions. Retrieved 2009-04-06.]

Is there a more credible source that reports on this? I'm interested to know:

  • Did Ritner chair Gee's dissertation committee?
  • Was Ritner even involved with his committee?
  • Did Ritner resign? From the committee or something else?
  • Did Daniel Petersen really say anything about this somewhere?

The internet forum posting actually says:

The Chair of his dissertation committee, Dr. Robert Ritner, abruptly resigned on account of some shadowy conflict---one which may have had to do with Gee's heavy involvement with BoA [Book of Abraham] apologetics. (On the other hand, LDS apologists such as DCP [Daniel C. Peterson] have insinuated that the resignation came about because Ritner is "bigoted" against Mormons.)

This sounds like an interesting early run-in between these two rivals, so I'd like to know if there's something to it. Rich jj (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it comes from a page full of hate-spewing people, I would not trust it in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2010 (UT--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)C)[reply]
I think there is a rivalry going on here - (though I highly doubt there is religious bigotry going on). Ritner has written papers and even appeared in a TV documentary condemning the Book of Abraham as a blatant mistranslation of the Joseph Smith Papyri (which is the mainstream academic view of the issue). Gee has been one of the leading apologists on the matter and one of only two (that I know of) BYU Egyptologists. Gee comes up with a lot of crazy apologetic theories to support the Book of Abraham that are considered absurd by all other Egyptologists. It is no wonder the two are at odds.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public Criticism?

[edit]

"One of Gee's former Yale professors, Robert K. Ritner, later publicly criticized some of Gee's interpretations of the Joseph Smith Papyri and failure to include Ritner in professional peer reviews of his work, as his other students have."

I read the source and this doesn't seem like criticism. Saying someone hasn't peer reviewed your work is not criticism. This sentence in the article should be removed. It sounds like a hit piece. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many professors did Gee have at Yale? How many courses did Gee take with Ritner? This does not seem to be very relevant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the mention of Robert K. Riter. I do not know if Dr. (I presume) Riter is notable enough to have an article in wikipedia. My guess he probably is. However to quote his statements without any article about him gives us the condition of not being able to understand where he is coming from. If he is to be treated as notable enough to be worth quoting as attacking others, we would need to first see that he is notable enough to have an article. Until that time, I do not think the statement is worth having.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One example of the type of complicating factors that would need to actually be considered for a fair study of Ritner's attack on Gee is his failure to acknowledge Michael D. Rhodes work on the extant fragments of the "Joseph Smith papyri" in his 2003 article on them. See Larry E. Morris' review of Ritner's work here for more explanation.[1] John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with removing this information. My reasons: 1) Gee is an outspoken supporter of the Book of Abraham 2) Ritner is a leading voice in scholarly criticism of the Book of Abaraham. 3) The Book of Abraham is a significant issue of conflict between the Mormon church and science. 4) It is incredibly ironic that Gee studied under Ritner - and the two are now juxtaposed on either side of a vehement debate between Mormon apologetics and mainstream Egyptology - with Gee breaking with scholarly convention in getting a peer review from his mentor - all due to religious reasons. 5) Side note: I actually think this article should probably be deleted (and I think I have nominated it for such before, can't remember...) - Ritner is a far more respected Egyptologist than Gee and should have an article of his own if Gee does. 6) The current content should probably be expanded to better reflect the facts of the case. The current sentence is very vague about what is really going on here.--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Is John Gee related to E. Gordon Gee? pbp 00:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should mentioned his named professorship

[edit]

The lead to the article should mention the named professorship that Gee holds. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Work quoted in an essay on Bible/Qu'ran intertextuslity

[edit]

The book on the early traditions of Abraham ny Gee, Haugland and Tsevdtness was quoted in a 2004 book on Bible/Qu'ran intertextuality. This shows that Gee's work is more broad than some may suppose. The Neal A. Maxwell Institue does not list any wotk by him after 2013, but I am not sure if the database I came acoss has any listings for the last year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Gee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salted

[edit]

Gérard Gertoux has been salted for a reason. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure:

  • Kurian, George Thomas; Lamport, Mark A., eds. (2016). "Sacred Name Movement". Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States. Vol. 5. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 2003. ISBN 9781442244320. Against the consensus that God's name was pronounced 'Yahweh', Gérard Gertoux has defended 'Yehowah'.
  • Gertoux has also been cited in the academic world, for example in the Encyclopedia of Christianity [2], Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity [3] and Μεγάλη Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Εγυκλοπαίδεια (ΜΟΧΕ) (Great Orthodox Christian Encyclopedia) [4].
  • Aviv Schoenfeld: "I adopt the (albeit minority) view that one of its ancient vocalizations was yəhōwɔ̄ (Gertoux 2015), contra the mainstream consensus that it was only yahwɛ".[5]
  • Won W. Lee: "this detailed treatment of the name is useful for those who are interested in the history of its translation in the centuries".[6]
  • Louvre: Après un parcours historique d'Adam à nos jours, l'auteur explore les problèmes de transcription et de vocalisation. Les dictionnaires indiquent que Yahvé (ou Yahweh) est une vocalisation incertaine, et que Jéhovah est un barbarisme provenant d'une mauvaise lecture. Dans cet historique du nom divin, Gérard Gertoux, hébraïsant tétragrammiste, démontre preuves à l'appui, que cette dernière affirmation est délibérément fausse [...] Puisque les voyelles sont a ,o, a, on aurait dû avoir le Nom pointé ainsi ; Or, comme le rappelle GG (page 124), on ne retrouve jamais cette forme. Des raisons grammaticales sont invoquées, mais sans fondement sérieux [...] Ainsi, pour Gérard Gertoux, la forme actuelle YeHoWah, que l'on trouve dans les Bibles juives, est le fruit d'une longue histoire. Par le plus grand des paradoxes, le système du queré/ketib, qui consiste à prononcer un mot à la place d'un autre, et qui était censé protéger le nom de Dieu, l'a réellement protégé (page 125) [...] Dans ce contexte, l'étude d'ensemble de Gérard Gertoux invite plus à une réflexion personnelle. [7]
  • Bruce M. Metzger: "for further scholarly information on the origins of sacred names, please visit the pages of Gérard GERTOUX". [8][9]
  • François Bœspflug: "Ringrazio vivamente Gérard Gertoux che con la sua disponibilita ha portato queste tema alla mia attenzione e mi ha fornito delle preziose indicazioni (che utilizzero di seguito)". [10]
  • George Wesley Buchanan: "for the use of Yehowah rather than Yahowah see the thesis of Gérard Gertoux"; "Based on this data, the divine name will be spelled arbitrarily Yehowah".[11]
  • George Wesley Buchanan: "let me thank you very much for sending me your excellent thesis. I trust that will soon have it published". [12]
  • Daniel Faivre: "pour une étude plus complete, voir G Gertoux". [13]
  • Daniel Faivre: "mon premier sentiment est très positif. Il s'agit d'un impressionnant travail d'érudition sur le Tétragramme, qui dépasse largement les analyses que j'ai développées dans mon dernier ouvrage". "J'ai parcouru avec beaucoup d'intérêt votre document […] Mais l'impression qui s'en dégage est très favorable. C'est un travail d'une grande érudition, s'appuyant des méthodes de recherches littéraires, linguistiques et historiques solides et complètes (…) Je vous souhaite bonne chance pour la publication de cette contribution, qui me paraît –j'insiste sur ce fait– tout à fait utile".[14]
  • Robert J. Wilkinson: Gertoux "holds strong views about its pronunciation and meaning". [15]
  • Philippe Barbey: "Gérard Gertoux, dans son ouvrage exhaustif consacré au nom de Dieu". [16]
  • Antonio Macaya Pascual: Gertoux "argumenta con muchas citas que sí se pronunciaba el nombre de YHWH hasta el siglo II d. C.".[17]
  • Charles Perrot (priest): "Vos remarques sur la prononciation de YHWH me paraissent fort pertinentes, même si, actuellement, il est en pratique un peu difficile de 'faire machine arrière', sans donner l'impression de céder aux Témoins de Jéhovah". [18]
  • André Chouraqui complimented Gertoux and quoted him in his book Moïse (p. 161)". [19]
  • Roberto Guidotti: "Altri, come lo studioso Gérard Gertoux, affermano convintamente che la pronuncia giusta sia Jehovah (Geova)". [20]
  • Henri Cazelles: "je vous remercie vivement de m'avoir envoyé votre 'ln Fame only?' d'une grande richesse de documentation. Je vais le déposer à la Bibliothèque Biblique pour le plus grand profit des chercheurs... Avec mes félicitations et remerciements." [21]
  • Edward Lipiński (orientalist): "je tiens à vous remercier pour cet envoi et à vous féliciter pour le travail consciencieux dont cette recherche fait preuve. Je ne manquerai pas d'en faire usage si je reviens un jour à ce sujet." [22]
  • Shelomo Morag: "the study is full of important evidence and gives a good survey of the research". [23]
  • Mireille Hadas-Lebel "je suis impressionnée par le fait que le tétragramme écrit en hiéroglyphes se prononce Yehua... Votre étude est si dense et si riche qu'elle mériterait que je la relise de plus près". [24] "Je ne sais pas encore si je prononcerai Yehua mais vous avez de bons arguments et je garderai précieusement votre travail".[25]
  • Marguerite Harl "votre envoi me remplit d'admiration... Encore une fois toutes mes félicitations".[26]
  • Jacques Duquesne (journalist): "en matière de prononciation du tétragramme: je ne possède pas, sur ce sujet, une érudition comparable à la vôtre. Mais votre démonstration me paraît tout à fait convaincante et je suis très heureux d'en avoir pris connaissance".[27]
  • Josy Eisenberg "je tiens à vous dire que je partage entièrement votre sentiment. Il y a eu trop d'erreurs couramment véhiculées à propos du Tétragramme".[28]
  • Jean Bottéro "vous m'avez l'air à lafois très informé et très exigeant: vous vous en sortirez et nous ferez un beau travail, qui 'apprendra beaucoup de choses! ... Vous avez un beau sujet de travail: j'aimerais bien voir paraître et lire votre thèse. C'est peut-être vous qui résoudrez les énigmes". [29]
  • E. J. Revell "I was very interested to read the copy of your work which you sent me. Before reading your study, had no particular opinion on the pronunciation of the name of God. As a student in the 50’s, I was told that scholars have determined that 'Yahweh' was the ancient pronunciation. I did not find the argument well grounded, but the view was held almost as an article of faith by my instructors, and I had no superior argument, so I ignored the problem. I have occasionally thought about it since, but I have not acquired any information that you have not noticed in your study. You have certainly collected more information on the question than any other study I know, and you are to be congratulated on the production of a valuable work. Many thanks for sending it to me". [30]
  • David C. Hopkins "Thank you for submitting your rich and detailed study. Your topic is fascinating".[31]
  • Elizabeth Livingstone "I sent your kind letter and the copy of your thesis to one of my colleagues who gave me much guidance over Old Testament material in the third edition of the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (…), telling me that he found your thesis most interesting; he said your case was reasonable one, and well argued". [32]
  • David Noel Freedman "I was pleased to hear from you and to have your detailed treatment of this valuable and interesting subject, on which I have written from time to time. I have never been entirely satisfied with my own analysis and interpretation of the divine name in the Hebrew Bible, or with that of others, including my own teacher, W.F. Albright and his teacher (from whom Albright derived his position), Paul Haupt. At the same time, I haven't seen anything to persuade me of the superior value of another interpretation, but I will be glad to learn from your study and perhaps discover that you have finally solved this long-standing puzzle". [33]
  • Jean Delumeau: Tous mes remerciements, cher Monsieur, pour votre ouvrage à la fois savant et convaincant. [34]
  • Jean-Claude Goyon: "J'ai relu avec attention votre contribution concernant le tétragramme et, aux petites remarques près, que je me suis permis de reporter sur vos feuillets aux endroits correspondants, il me semble que l'ensemble peut tenir la route, du moins aux yeux des égyptologues, seule catégorie, il est vrai, pour qui je puisse parler".[35][36] "The conventional transcription yhw3 was to be vocalized yehua according to this conventional system". [37]
  • Pierre Grelot: Votre lettre me comble de confusion. Vous êtes un puits de science (…) Bref, vous m'instruisez vous, me faites réfléchir; mais votre vocalisation hypothétique du tétragramme me laisse sceptique.[38]
  • Dan Jaffé: "Vos remarques sont fort suggestives et de surcroît, pertinentes.[39]
  • Dominique de La Maisonneuve: "C'est avec intérêt que j'ai lu vos remarques érudites concernant le nom de YHWH dans notre ouvrage collectif : Qui est-Il ton Dieu ? Je souscris largement à tout ce que vous dites et qui témoigne d'une large documentation".[40]
  • Takamitsu Muraoka: "I have found your thesis altogether a most interesting piece of work, despite some reservations I have indicated above".[41][42]
  • Colette Sirat: J'ai lu votre travail avec beaucoup d'intérêt. Et votre thèse me paraît fort juste en général."[43][44]
  • Guy Rachet: "Il n'en demeure pas moins que j'ai admiré l'érudition que vous maniez dans votre démonstration qui m'a certainement convaincu. Néanmoins, considéré le propos de mon livre, je suis contraint de continuer, dans les volumes à venir, d'utiliser la forme Yahweh, ce qui ne m'empêchera pas de suggérer la vraisemblable lecture que vous proposez, en citant pour le moins votre correspondance,[45]
  • Jean Vernette: "Je vais, à l'aide de votre lettre, reprendre à nouveau au fond la question, votre intervention étant elle aussi, des plus informées. Et des + scientifiques. Vous savez sans doute que le thème du Nom divin Jéhovah, est un des plus passionnés et passionnants dans la controverse avec les Témoins. J'essaie, en tant que chercheur objectif, d'approcher au plus près la vérité. Merci de m'avoir écrit pour m'y aider".[46] After stating that the most likely pronunciation was Yahweh, Vernete softened his view and quoted Gertoux in: "Les Sectes" (2519). Les Sectes, Que sais-je?. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France: 42. 2002.
  • Alfred Kuen: "Personnellement, je n'aime d'ailleurs pas ce nom de Yahvé (qui sonne comme le nom d'un dieu étranger), mais son usage s'est tellement répandu — par erreur, comme vous le dites — qu'il est difficile d'y échapper. La réticence à utiliser le nom de Jéhovah provient sans doute, comme vous le dites, de la peur d'être confondu avec les Témoins de Jéhovah".[47] "The reply of Jean Margain, is the best answer that can be given. There is, therefore, no conspiracy and, for me, everyone is free to utter the tetragrammaton as he sees fit, since academics have no elements to clarify their reading. Yours sincerely". [48]
  • Jean Margain: "I cannot tell you that your conclusions are false. Everything connected with the designation of a divinity is not merely logical. Your work is to be placed on the subject of this delicate question in which beliefs of a religious or emotional nature, taboos, pagan influences and superstitious practices are mingled with the belief. I congratulate you for having carried out such an inquiry and I wish you to continue your research successfully [...] .[49] [50]
  • Jean Leclant: "It is very difficult to answer your question and it is best to stick to the conventional transcription system (yhw3)". [51][52]
  • Emanuel Tov and Nehemia Gordon,[53] Philippe Cassuto,[54] André Caquot,[55] Bernard Barc,[56] Thomas Römer,[57][58], Dominique Barthélemy,[59] Étienne Nodet,[60], Ziony Zevit,[61] Florence Malbran-Labat,[62][63], Christian Amphoux,[64], Claude Tresmontant,[65] Société Biblique de Genève,[66]
  • Pavlos D. Vasileiadis: "For an overview of the longstanding efforts to render the Tetragrammaton in Greek, see Vasileiadis (2013) and Gertoux (2002, pp. 125–136)". [67]
  • Thomas D. Ross says that Gertoux's work "defend the traditional translation of the Tetragrammaton".[68]
  • Ren Manetti follows G. Gertoux on the idea that he "postulated that the perpetual qere was not for Adonai, but for Shema", and considers that some have recently pointed out "a number of problems with Gesenius's theory.[69]
  • Hermann Hunger: "Gertoux "offers new conclusions or refutes chronologies proposed by other scholars".[70]
  • Claude Obsomer: "d'après une communication de Gérard Gertroux, que je remercie". [71]
  • D. A. Snyder: "the reason I give such high regard for the Gertoux timeline is the highly documented research that he uses in his ancient chronological system of study. His work equates the Hebrews with the Hyksos with some certainty.[72]
  • Ola Wikander: "A recent publication supporting the identification with Tudḫula (which ultimately goes back to T. G. Pinches in 1897) is Gérard Gertoux, Abraham and Chedorlaomer: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence (sineloco,2015), 34 (etpassim). One may note with some interest that Sayce actually suggests identifying Tudḫaliya with the Tudḫula of the Spartoli tablet sin his early comment (or Tudghula, as he writes the latter), and indeed uses that purported identification as a step in arguing the connection between the Hittite name and Genesis 14!". [73]
  • Jozef Hudec and Miroslav Černý: "The 7th day of the 3rd month of inundation (LICHTHEIM, M. Ancient Egyptian Literature. Vol. I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms, p. 223) would have been in November during the rule of Amenemhet I/Senwosret I. (GERTOUX, G. Absolute Chronology of the Ancient World from 2840 BCE to 1533 BCE, p. 39)". [74]
  • Giuseppe Veneziano: 1 BCE "is supported, inter alia, by W. E. Filmer (Filmer 1966), A. E. Steinmann (Steinmann 2009), and by Gerard Gertoux (Gertoux s.d.)", and he adds that "however, Josephus himself, although very precise in describing the events, is a little less precise in their chronological framework and - as G. Gertoux (Gertoux 2010) recalls - provides us with at least a dozen information that contribute to making it inadequate or doubtful this date [...] this and other anachronisms, widely discussed by Gertoux and by Steinmann in their writings (complete with schematics), would seem to demonstrate how the date of 1 BC it is more coherent than that which places Herod's death in 4 BC. However, without preconceptions, we now evaluate both hypotheses also from an astronomical and biblical point of view". [75]
  • The Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology: "as for the overall historicity of the book—despite widespread dismissal from skeptics—there is likewise a remarkable body of evidence for it, including the historical identity of Queen Esther herself. For more on this, read a thorough investigation by Gerard Gertoux". [76]
  • Albertus Pretorius is of the opinion that "Gertoux compiled a credible chronology of the life of Jesus".[77]
  • Paul Finch: Gertoux's "research completely dovetails with the conclusion of the present author had already determined. Indeed, he has presented an excellent testimony from other notable ancient historians that Carthage was founded in 870 BC". [78]
  • First fact check: "An amazing French scholar named Gérard Gertoux has made remarkable inroads into establishing the historicity of the Bible". [79]
  • Tony O'Connell: "Gérard Gertoux is a French academic who is best known for his book The name of God Y.eH.oW.aH. However, most of his prodigious output is concerned with ancient chronology". [80]
  • Kenneth C. Griffith and Darrell K. White: "Academia discounts ancient historical records in favor of contemporary inscriptions and seems to intentionally discount Scripture. Summarized by Gertoux (2022b, 2)". [81]; "Of the three, we consider Goodenow's solution to be most plausible, and Gertoux's chronology of the Kings of Aram to be the most accurate". [82]
  • Nicholas P. Lunn: "See. e.g. Gerard Gertoux's convincing presentation". [83]
  • Paul Bernard: "Gérard Gertoux de l'Université de Lyon 2, dresse la liste des six recensements effectués de -28 à +14, dont trois « avec lustration », ceux de -28, -8 et +14, qui ne concernaient que les citoyens romains, et trois autres en -23, -12 e +9, qui n'etaient que des recensements provinciaux [...] Finalement, et pour surprenante qu'elle soit, la date de l'an -12 pour la naissance de Jésus est la seule que soit coérente avec l'esemble des dennées". [84]

Influence is seen in the academy.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Gee&oldid=1233089156"