Abraham in an Egyptian funeral text?

[A Random Catholic]

Is Ritner's dissertation published? If so, what is the title?

[wjwalsh]

Is Ritner's dissertation published? If so, what is the title?

I have the revised version published as : Robert Kriech Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice (Chicago, Illinois: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993.)

If you are interested in Heka, it is a must have I think (even if you want to disagree with him.) I don't claim to be the most widely read person in the universe (far from it), but it is interesting to see it quoted by so many people. Dissertations usually sit on the shelf and gather dust (as mine will undoubtedly do), but then again Ritner's dissertation won the Yale 1994 Heyman Prize for Ourstanding Scholarly Publication in the Humanities.

WJW

[Jarrod]

This argument isn't valid.

[Jarrod]

Is Ritner's dissertation published?  If so, what is the title?

You can get a reprint by going to the JNES homepage and contacting the circulation department, asking for the July 2003 issue. You can also phone them at 773-753-3347. I believe the cost is less than $20 including shipping. You could also contact Dialogue and order the back issue from Winter 2000.

[Paul Osborne]

I am not aware of a single non-LDS Egyptologist who takes LDS claims about the Book of Abraham seriously.

Most non-LDS Egyptologists don't know or care anything about LDS claims regarding the Book of Abraham. I'm curious, though, Jarrod. How many Egyptologists, LDS or not, do you know?

The church ought to be more embarrassed with every new FARMS article or book published to defend the Book of Abraham.

[SouthBayMC]

Perhaps some help to Jarrod, Random Catholic and others,

As posted by The Headless Laban on a previous thread [credit him for the research!) ---

[A Random Catholic]

Jarrod, Laban, & SouthBayMC: Thanks- I have that article (for which I paid $28.00- where were you when I needed you?) but I was interested specifically in Ritner's doctoral dissertation, which WJW refers to above.

WJW: I asked about Ritner's dissertation because you referenced it with respect to the "notorious politics" of Egyptology. Is Ritner's thesis controversial? What is his agenda? Is it in opposition to the (not necessarily LDS-related) scholarship of Gee or something? No doubt one could write another dissertation on those questions; no need, but a brief summary for the uninitiated would be nice...

[juliann]

What argument are you trying to make here? What, that Bible translations are unreliable compared to Joseph's ability to translate? Gee, my point was pretty simple and it even supports the LDS position on the Book of Abraham from the perspective of being able to trust a transliterated text. In case you missed it, here it is: There are plenty of examples in our study of scripture where our grasp of the ancient language is not required for us to be able to rely on the translation. Yes, a grasp of the ancient languages will certainly help us understand certain cultural contexts, but fluency is generally not required.

Obviously, you are not going to listen to me. So listen to Ritner on page 166 of the link provided. "Where the context is not definitive the translator is forced to make a personal choice." He also mentions the "ambiguity" of the script. No one would argue that most of the time the translations are reliable. But most of the time does not help where important theological arguments can rest on one word. You claim to take Gee and Ritner translations as "reliable"...but they disagree on point after point as Ritner takes such glee in pointing out. At that point, fluency is required if you want to make up your own mind.

[juliann]

And we also have some excellent responses regarding them. In fact, Kevin Barney's ideas on the subject are, IMO, stunning and ground breaking. You and Jarrod may feel free to ignore them as you wish.

My beef with Ritner besides his churlish footnotes, is that he does not address the differing theories. (A paper that begins by calling a text held to be sacred as "nonsense" should give anyone pause as to the author's intent.)

His most glaring descent into a hostile agenda is his refusal to do much besides growl that everyone else is "wrong".....most notably where he simply says that Gee can't be allowed to state the length of the papyri. That's it. And he moves on to his next insult without ever addressing why there may be differing estimates. We are simply to believe Ritner.

It is difficult to read this article without a visual picture of Ritner blowing a big raspberry while he sticks his fingers in his ears and wags them at Gee. I look forward to his next try at actually engaging the current theories about the papyri and JS's translation of them.

[Guest The Headless Laban]

My beef with Ritner besides his churlish footnotes, is that he does not address the differing theories. (A paper that begins by calling a text held to be sacred as "nonsense" should give anyone pause as to the author's intent.)

He specifically calls some of Joseph's translations nonsense.

Such

[juliann]

He specifically calls some of Joseph's translations nonsense.

Again, he is not dealing at all with the current theories and scholarship on the issue other to chirp "they are wrong". That is not scholarship it's apologetics.

[wjwalsh]

Is Ritner's thesis controversial? What is his agenda? Is it in opposition to the (not necessarily LDS-related) scholarship of Gee or something? No doubt one could write another dissertation on those questions; no need, but a brief summary for the uninitiated would be nice...

I think several different issues are all floating around on this thread.

To my knowledge, Prof. Ritner's dissertation is not controversial (except maybe to the people whom he harshly critisized). I referred you that source as a reference on politics in Egyptology in general. To my knowledge, Ritner's dissertation has nothing to do with Prof. Gee or LDS-issues being discussed in this thread (i.e., any personal issues between Gee and Ritnmer).

WJW

[cinepro]

Questions for the believers in the BoA:

What do you think was written on the papyrii Joseph Smith "translated"? Do you think it was a version of our modern day BoA written in Egyptian, and if we had the whole scroll today, modern Egyptologists could translate it and confirm Joseph's translating abilities?

If you do believe it was a literal translation, how strong is that belief? Assuming there is a lost portion, what if that portion were found in another museum, and was shown to have absolutely nothing to do with the BoA?

Would that damage your belief, or would you shift to a "revelatory" model where the text was independent of the translation?

[wjwalsh]

Questions for the believers in the BoA:

What do you think was written on the papyrii Joseph Smith "translated"? Do you think it was a version of our modern day BoA written in Egyptian, and if we had the whole scroll today, modern Egyptologists could translate it and confirm Joseph's translating abilities?

If you do believe it was a literal translation, how strong is that belief? Assuming there is a lost portion, what if that portion were found in another museum, and was shown to have absolutely nothing to do with the BoA?

Would that damage your belief, or would you shift to a "revelatory" model where the text was independent of the translation?

Have no idea what was written on the papyrus. Take no position on the 'translation,' as Joseph Smith did not leave enough information for me to take a position as to his translation. Given this, another manuscript would have absolutely no bearing on my acceptance of the BoA.

I accept the BoA as true scripture because of the testimony of the Spirit.

WJW

[kurtlein]

I have no idea what Egyptian says or what it said on the papyri the prophet Joseph Smith had; it doesn't matter. The Lord's Church and his prophets have declared it scripture and the Spirit has confirmed it through reading and prayer; end of discussion for me.

[alienward]

The claim is not, I think, that Abraham appears in the Joseph Smith Papyri, but that the name does indeed appear in another papyrus text unrelated to Joseph Smith. This counters the assertion of some critics that Abraham would never appear in an Egyptian hieroglyphic text. And, yes, other scholars (such as the University of Chicago's Hans-Dieter Betz) do indeed recognize the name Abraham in the document under discussion. It's not really a controversial claim.

Isn

[alienward]

Critics said that the name Abraham would never appear in an Egyptian hieroglyphic text.  They were wrong.

Smith said Abraham is in the Book of the Dead material printed in Mormon scripture. He was wrong.

The Mormon church prints claims in it's scripture that the Book of the Dead material in it's scripture is from the Book of Abraham. They are wrong.

Critics also typically maintain that we have all of the papyri that Joseph Smith once possessed. Professor Gee contends that they are incorrect. On the basis of at least two distinct but converging lines of evidence, he argues that we now possess roughly 13% of the Joseph Smith Papyri -- which means, obviously, if he is correct, that 87% of the Joseph Smith Papyri are missing. Hence it would be wildly premature to conclude that the name Abraham did not appear in the papyri once possessed by Joseph Smith.

The material from the Book of the Dead printed in Mormon scripture is referenced by the text the apologists try to claim is missing. This is enough proof Smith didn

[alienward]

Every time I see this lie surface, I bat it down.

From

[Matt Andrews]

I may regret having said anything at all on this thread, but one comment:

The Headless Laban wrote:

FARMS job is to defend the church at all costs. They are not paid to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion. They are paid to defend the church. Their job is to start with the conclusion (The church is true, the book of mormon is true, Joseph Smith was a true prophet) and then make the evidence fit that conclusion.

Daniel Peterson responded:

Every time I see this lie surface, I bat it down.

John Gee is a research professor in Egyptology, and he is paid to do research in Egyptology and to present papers at Egyptological conferences and to publish in Egyptological journals.

Bill Hamblin is paid to be a professor of history. Jack Welch is paid as a professor of law. Stephen Ricks is paid to be a professor of Hebrew. I am paid as a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic.

Unfortunately, the lie is like an undead zombie. It keeps coming, until it sucks the brains from those who succumb to it.

While I believe Daniel is correct that they are not 'paid to defend the church' as Headless put it, there is an idea worth considering here.

If any BYU professor published an article that the evidence did not support that conclusion (that the church was true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet), but rather something the opposite, wouldn't their pay be in jeopardy?

While I am sure the professors mentioned really do believe the evidence lead to their conclusions, how many BYU professors might disagree if they felt they were allowed to without risking their position at the university?

(It is, of course, BYU's right to pay or not pay whomever it chooses. It is a private university, and it is not neutral on the matter of defending the LDS church. But I think it would be a stretch to suggest that doesn't affect the kinds of articles its faculty chooses to publish.)

I'm not sure about any of this, of course. Just thought that Headless may have brought up an important issue.

(Just to be clear, I am NOT taking a position on what the evidence for the Book of Abraham implies, for or against its divine origin. I am not well-read on the subject, nor is it one that troubles me.)

[Calm]

This is irrelevant to the professors in question, however. They are not being forced to publish any of their materials. If there was any doubt on their part, all they would have to do is refrain from writing about the problematic topics.

That they choose to publish, without pressure to do so (lack of pressure should be obvious by the number of BYU profs who do not publish apologetic works), should be evidence of their own personal beliefs.

As to those who might disagree if they felt secure to do so, that would be pure speculation. We can't even make the claim that there are any because if there was someone who publicly disagreed (there is one about the issue of homosexuality, IIRC), that would mean that they felt secure to do so already and therefore do not belong in the speculative group. Probability is that they do exist, but that is really the only conclusion that could be made.

[Paul Osborne]

He specifically calls some of Joseph's translations nonsense.

Again, he is not dealing at all with the current theories and scholarship on the issue other to chirp "they are wrong". That is not scholarship it's apologetics.

Does the latest new scholarship tell us the name of the king written above the head in Facsimile No. 3? Of course not. This latest "new scholarship" quip is nothing to get all worked up over - unless of course it is Paul Osborne's apologetics.

Much of the the new scholarship coming out of FARMS is just a ploy, a red fish to take people off the real trail and off the ball. It's totally unfit for my likeing and I'm grateful I can think for my self without being hand held by John Gee and Michale Rhodes.

Face it, John Gee doesn't have a clue about the name of the king. He can't read Egyptian like Joseph Smith did. We don't need John Gee to tell us how Joseph Smith translated the BofA because he doesn't know how.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Questions for the believers in the BoA:

What do you think was written on the papyrii Joseph Smith "translated"? Do you think it was a version of our modern day BoA written in Egyptian, and if we had the whole scroll today, modern Egyptologists could translate it and confirm Joseph's translating abilities?

If you do believe it was a literal translation, how strong is that belief? Assuming there is a lost portion, what if that portion were found in another museum, and was shown to have absolutely nothing to do with the BoA?

Would that damage your belief, or would you shift to a "revelatory" model where the text was independent of the translation?

All of the papyri Joseph Smith and his companions worked with were funerary literature, spells for the dead. There never was a roll that contained the story of Abraham in conventional hieroglyphs. Joseph Smith translated in a manner not known to human mind in our present way of thinking. It was pure revelation and the papyri with all its characters, images, and suggestive reasoning was merely a vehicle in which to excite the mind and prepare it for the Egyptian experience in which the prophet ventured.

We don

[Paul Osborne]

I accept the BoA as true scripture because of the testimony of the Spirit.

WJW

Amen,

Paul O

[alienward]

While I believe Daniel is correct that they are not 'paid to defend the church' as Headless put it, there is an idea worth considering here.

First of all the paper wouldn

[Daniel Peterson]

Daniel himself is on the Board, he