Ritner's response to the Book of Abraham essay

[hope_for_things]

I saw this on my facebook feed, curious is people have seen this yet, it is a response by Robert Ritner specifically to the LDS gospel topics essay on the Book of Abraham.  The conclusion section says:

Quote

With the Book of Abraham now confirmed as a perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith, the LDS church may well devote some reflection to the status of the text. The former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, since 2001 renamed the Community of Christ, avoids this issue by treating the Book of Abraham as speculative writing by Smith, not as a document of historical truth. In this decision they are clearly correct. Despite its inauthenticity as a genuine historical narrative, the Book of Abraham remains a valuable witness to early American religious history and to the recourse to ancient texts as sources of modern religious faith and speculation. The book still has its uses and significance, but not for the ancient world of Egypt and Abraham.

http://signaturebooks.com/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/

Thoughts on Ritner's analysis?  For myself, not being a scholar, I have to say that I haven't found any of the apologists attempts to legitimize the BoA as convincing.  I'm still fine with identifying the content in the PoGP as scripture in our church (scripture is whatever a religious community collectively defines as scripture), but the overarching story about this text is problematic because of Joseph's claims that he was translating Egyptian texts when its very clear that there is nothing to do with Abraham on the papyrus fragments and that Joseph had no knowledge or ability to translate Egyptian.  

[stemelbow]

Hey thanks for the notice of this.  I too "haven't found any of the apologists attempts to legitimize the BoA as convincing".  Says the article you linked: 

Quote

The web posting notes also two writings by John Gee (notes 44 and 45), purporting to prove a memory of the sacrifice of Abraham by Pharaoh in later Egypt. It is not fully accurate to claim that the third-century Demotic papyrus cited by Gee “connects Abraham with an illustration similar to facsimile 1 in the book of Abraham.” The text in question, a Leiden magical papyrus in Demotic Egyptian and Greek (P. Lugd. Bat. I 384 verso = PGM XII), does include a picture of a mummy attended by Anubis —mentioned by name— on a lion funerary couch (not an “altar”), but the text is a love compulsion spell intended to force a woman to submit to a male’s sexual lust, not a reflection of the Book of Abraham. As accompanying magical words of power the speaker recites: “..aydyo oryx thambyto abraam o epy … planoyegxybyoth” etc. The string of abracadabra words does include “abraam,” and this spelling has been corrected to “Abraham” in a recent edition.⁶ However, the name is just one of a string of magical names and no more relevant to the image than “oryx thambyto” or “planoyegxybyoth.” Moreover, there is no intent here to represent a sacrifice, just Osiris tended by Anubis, who are both invoked to inflame the libido of the female victim of the spell. The body on the lion bed is certainly that of the deceased Osiris (as it is Hôr’s vignette), not a threatened Abraham.

It's as if we're being fed lines, it feels like, when it comes to some of the apologetic material about the book. 

 

This was interesting:

Quote

In his introduction to the volume, Tanner records that his Modern Microfilm Co. was contacted “in the early part of 1965” by a student at the Brigham Young University who had a typed copy of the “Egyptian Alphabet” hand copies, and that “later in the year another man loaned us a microfilm of the original document.” The microfilm reproductions found in the Tanner volume were printed from masters produced “in the early part of 1966,” the same year that the Tanner volume was published. The dates of 1965-1966 are significant, because the microfilm edition contains not only the “Egyptian Alphabet,” but the evolving manuscript pages for the future Book of Abraham as well. These pages contain copies of specific Egyptian text from the “Breathing Permit of Hôr,” column 2. That section of the papyrus was not reproduced in the Book of Abraham or any other publication until the rediscovery of the Smith papyri in New York in 1967 and the publication of sepia photographs in The Improvement Era in January and February of 1968. The copies made in 1965 and 1966, and the 1966 publication by Tanner, cannot then be forgeries since no forger could have had the unknown papyrus as a model to copy. The equation of the Book of Abraham and the “Breathing Permit of Hôr” is thus undeniable, and the source of Smith’s nineteenth century composition is settled. Period.

he just put a period saying Joseph did try and translate from the papyrus, almost as if he's saying even the catalyst-type theory is not possible. 

And he repeats the point from a different angle in the very next paragraph:

Quote

The Tanner volume that first published these manuscripts is cumbersome to use as it lacks running pagination, but relevant manuscript pages are lettered J through M, with a second series labeled out of order S, R, Q, N, P and O. Exactly like the “Alphabet and Grammar,” the pages include copies of Egyptian script on the left corresponding to lengthy English on the right. But in these texts, the English is the text of the Book of Abraham as it was being modified and would be published, with obvious deletions and revisions in the handwritten English text. Also unlike the “Alphabet and Grammar” hand copies, the Egyptian script on most of these sheets is immediately clear and readily translated by modern Egyptologists. Without question, the translation efforts by Smith and his “scribes” were based directly on Smith’s Egyptian papyri.

What I find somewhat interesting then is Parrish' quote:

Quote

I have set (sic) by his side and penned down the Egyptian hieroglyphicks (sic) as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from heaven.

he uses this first hand account to suggest, it seems, that Joseph was translating off of the papyrus--rather than the possibility that he used the papyrus as a catalyst for creating inspired writ.  But that's not really what it says.  In fact, to me it's almost nonsense.  Did Joseph receive the Egyptian hieroglyphics which Parrish penned?  Doesn't really make sense and so seems like a pretty tenuous thing from which Ritner basis his conclusion that the matter is settled as it pertains to whether Joseph was attempting to actually translate the Egyptian.  I think he's being reasonable but I'd maintain there's still a crack open which allows for a more catalyst-type theory. 

Anyway, it is a good write up, something I'll get back to in more detail, myself. 

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's as if we're being fed lines, it feels like, when it comes to some of the apologetic material about the book. 

I think the whole BoA back and forth history is potentially ripe for some sociologists to use as a study in the dynamics of religious responses to higher criticism from secular institutions.  

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

he just put a period saying Joseph did try and translate from the papyrus, almost as if he's saying even the catalyst-type theory is not possible. 

I think this is a good point and that he's saying the source material Joseph believes he's using is the papyri.  This is a flaw in the catalyst theory and part of the reason I find that explanation unsatisfactory.  If Joseph Smith believes he's translating Egyptian from the Papyri, how can we just dismiss what Joseph says about the process?  

Instead of translating Egyptian from the papyri, God was communicating to him a story about Abraham, but in essence tricking Joseph who thought that he was translating the papyri, but he wasn't actually translating anything, he was just receiving divine communication from God about Abraham, and it had nothing to do with the papyri at all.  I find this approach problematic.  

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

he uses this first hand account to suggest, it seems, that Joseph was translating off of the papyrus--rather than the possibility that he used the papyrus as a catalyst for creating inspired writ.  But that's not really what it says.  In fact, to me it's almost nonsense.  Did Joseph receive the Egyptian hieroglyphics which Parrish penned?  Doesn't really make sense and so seems like a pretty tenuous thing from which Ritner basis his conclusion that the matter is settled as it pertains to whether Joseph was attempting to actually translate the Egyptian.  I think he's being reasonable but I'd maintain there's still a crack open which allows for a more catalyst-type theory. 

But isn't Ritner just using this Parrish quote to refute the statement in the essay that "no eyewitness account of the translation survives".  He's saying Parrish claims to be an eye witness, so the essay isn't accurate with their assertion that no eyewitness account survived.  I think that's all he's saying.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I saw this on my facebook feed, curious is people have seen this yet, it is a response by Robert Ritner specifically to the LDS gospel topics essay on the Book of Abraham.  The conclusion section says:

http://signaturebooks.com/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/

Thoughts on Ritner's analysis?  For myself, not being a scholar, I have to say that I haven't found any of the apologists attempts to legitimize the BoA as convincing.  I'm still fine with identifying the content in the PoGP as scripture in our church (scripture is whatever a religious community collectively defines as scripture), but the overarching story about this text is problematic because of Joseph's claims that he was translating Egyptian texts when its very clear that there is nothing to do with Abraham on the papyrus fragments and that Joseph had no knowledge or ability to translate Egyptian.  

I don't see the problem

It's on the same footing with the Book or Mormon and no Mormon seems to have a problem with that.

If you have a problem with it you should leave the church.   It's that simple.

It's revelation for Pete's sake.  Either you see it as such or not.  No biggie- I cannot even understand the problem.   Yes literalists have gotten it wrong forever.  What else is new?

Could it still be history delivered by revelation?  Of course.  Does knowing the unknowable history matter?  Of course not.

We might as well be arguing about Atlantis and whether or not it is historical.  Who cares?   What can we learn about ourselves by even worrying about whether or not Atlantis was historical?

I am not losing sleep over any of it.  Did Joshua stop the sun?   Did a donkey talk?  Did one man getting crucified save mankind from their sins?

And we are worried about some papyrus?  Give me a break! 

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the whole BoA back and forth history is potentially ripe for some sociologists to use as a study in the dynamics of religious responses to higher criticism from secular institutions.  

I think this is a good point and that he's saying the source material Joseph believes he's using is the papyri.  This is a flaw in the catalyst theory and part of the reason I find that explanation unsatisfactory.  If Joseph Smith believes he's translating Egyptian from the Papyri, how can we just dismiss what Joseph says about the process?  

Instead of translating Egyptian from the papyri, God was communicating to him a story about Abraham, but in essence tricking Joseph who thought that he was translating the papyri, but he wasn't actually translating anything, he was just receiving divine communication from God about Abraham, and it had nothing to do with the papyri at all.  I find this approach problematic.  

But isn't Ritner just using this Parrish quote to refute the statement in the essay that "no eyewitness account of the translation survives".  He's saying Parrish claims to be an eye witness, so the essay isn't accurate with their assertion that no eyewitness account survived.  I think that's all he's saying.  

Sure.  I think your right about his use of the quote, but I can't see anything else to support his point that Joseph had to have been translating the characters.  

I agree though that it's weird to try and conclude a catalyst because it essentially means Joseph lied or was tricked by god.  

Ah well... I look at this more later.  Thanks for your thoughts.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't see the problem

It's on the same footing with the Book or Mormon and no Mormon seems to have a problem with that.

If you have a problem with it you should leave the church.   It's that simple.

It's revelation for Pete's sake.  Either you see it as such or not.  No biggie- I cannot even understand the problem.   Yes literalists have gotten it wrong forever.  What else is new?

Could it still be history delivered by revelation?  Of course.  Does knowing the unknowable history matter?  Of course not.

We might as well be arguing about Atlantis and whether or not it is historical.  Who cares?   What can we learn about ourselves by even worrying about whether or not Atlantis was historical?

I am not losing sleep over any of it.  Did Joshua stop the sun?   Did a donkey talk?  Did one man getting crucified save mankind from their sins?

And we are worried about some papyrus?  Give me a break! 

Its a problem if people have a problem with it.  Surely you can see where certain people have a trust problem when Joseph claims to be doing something and it turns out that he was wrong.  This is pretty simple.  

For the BoA specifically, the claims about it by Joseph, and the subsequent assumptions by every church leader and the majority of the church membership since, has been that the BoA is a literal translation of the Egyptian on the papyri.  This is factually incorrect, and all the earlier attempts to prove otherwise have been debunked.  This is a problem for people who value honesty and trusted church leaders.  

Now, we can get to your other ideas about could a person consider the BoA as revelation or scripture, and with those ideas I totally agree with you.  Those are completely subjective questions of faith, have nothing to do with translation of Egyptian or anything.  Midrash is a good comparison.  

Could the stories even be historical, could God have been communicating something to Joseph that actually happened to a real guy named Abraham, yes.  There is no way of proving this true or false with any degree of certainty, we don't have access to records that go back that far.  

All the rest of what you mention I completely agree with, but this doesn't dismiss the problem of trusting the man Joseph Smith who claimed to be doing something that the evidence clearly shows he was not doing.  This also makes people question his reliability with respect to the BoM and other revelations he was having.  If he was wrong about the BoA, then what other things was he wrong about.  It really opens a can of worms for some people, not everyone, but it is a problem for some, so therefore its a problem.  

 

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I saw this on my facebook feed, curious is people have seen this yet, it is a response by Robert Ritner specifically to the LDS gospel topics essay on the Book of Abraham.  The conclusion section says:

http://signaturebooks.com/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/

Thoughts on Ritner's analysis?  For myself, not being a scholar, I have to say that I haven't found any of the apologists attempts to legitimize the BoA as convincing.  I'm still fine with identifying the content in the PoGP as scripture in our church (scripture is whatever a religious community collectively defines as scripture), but the overarching story about this text is problematic because of Joseph's claims that he was translating Egyptian texts when its very clear that there is nothing to do with Abraham on the papyrus fragments and that Joseph had no knowledge or ability to translate Egyptian.  

Is he saying that essay confirms that the BoA is a "well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith"?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Is he saying that essay confirms that the BoA is a "well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith"?

No, I think he(Ritner) believes that, but I don't think he's suggesting the churches essay clearly proves this.  He said this about some admissions in the Gospel Topics essay.  

Quote

Such a declaration may seem reasonable to those already predisposed to accept it, but on closer reading, the LDS church posting suggests discomfort with its own conclusions and reasoning.

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I think he(Ritner) believes that, but I don't think he's suggesting the churches essay clearly proves this.  He said this about some admissions in the Gospel Topics essay.  

 

So where can we find this confirmation that the BOA is made up that he speaks about?

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So where can we find this confirmation that the BOA is made up that he speaks about?

I'm confused, did you read his essay on the topic.  He pretty clearly explains his position on the BoA as well as why the gospel topics essay is flawed.  You'll have to decide for yourself what you believe about the BoA, and I believe that is largely a question of faith not of facts.  

What I think Ritner correctly and strongly argues in his essay is that the papyrus did not contain anything about the person Abraham and that many of the apologetic arguements do not hold up to serious scholarly scrutiny.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

...I can't see anything else to support his point that Joseph had to have been translating the characters.  

 

Here is my list of indicators that JS believed he was translating specific Egyptian characters by the power of God:

- 3 BoA manuscripts in the hands of Joseph's scribes with Egyptian characters in the margins, which characters are in the same order as characters from next to facsimile 1 on Hor's Book of Breathings (see Ritner's essay).

- Joseph's statement that the papyri contained an account of Abraham and of Joseph.

- Joseph's statement that he learned about the doctrine of premortal life by translating the Egyptian papyri in his possession.

- The Alphabet and Grammar of the Egyptian language, which contains Egyptian characters and their translation. Several copies of this document exist, and one is in JS' hand writing. There is a journal account that says that a system of celestial astronomy was "unfolded" while he worked on the Egyptian Alphabet/Grammar, giving at least one indication that he believed revelation was involved in the process.

- According to Don Bradley's research, upon being presented with the Kinderhook plates, Joseph called for his Egyptian Alphabet/Grammar to begin an initial investigation, from which he matched a single character and determined what he thought the contents of the Kinderhook plates were. This suggests JS' trust in the Egyptian Alphabet/Grammar and the feeling of ownership he likely felt toward it.

- JS' translation of some of the Egyptian characters resulting in the beginning of an account of princess kitumin. The journal this account/translation is written in  specifies that it is a translation of characters from the papyri, which characters are copied in the journal (see the JS Papers website).

- JS' displaying of cuttings of papyri, saying one was a creation account written by Moses' hand.

- Last but not least, JS' translation of specific characters in the facsimiles.

I find that there is plenty of evidence, an overwhelming amount depending on your bias, that JS mistakenly believed he was translating specific Egyptian characters from the papyri. However, I still believe there is room for communion with the divine despite this inherently flawed process. Would that communion produce historical truth? IMO, probably not, but I do find that it can produce spiritually valuable material.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Jude2]

 As I studied the Book of Abraham and all anti stuff I was unimpressed with their accusations. They said our little bird was a ba but our bird doesn’t look like any other ba I could find, it doesn’t have a human head and his wings hang down, it’s rather amateurish. All the ones I looked up have nice straight lines but ours is rather sorry looking. I decided the man, whoever he was, who drew the picture was not a professional facsimile drawer but someone who  wanted us to understand 

“That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning,” 

The other thing which impressed me was verse 1:9

“ 9 And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh, and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun.

The symbol of the God of Pharaoh was a crocodile just as Joseph said it was, they called him Sobek. At one point this god was merged with the God of the Sun, Ra. So he was called Sobek Ra .

I found this; “He was also worshiped as the manifestation of Amun-Re and was often depicted wearing either the headdress of Amun or the sun disk of Ra.” http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/sobek.html  

So as I looked at verse 9 I realized Pharaoh was a person and Sobek was his God. I must assume Shagreel to be a person also and his God was Ra. Then I found this picture with Sobeck with the round disk of Ra over his head and that was all I needed to know Joseph was right about this;  no need to ring my hands over all the other stuff. 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Jude2

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm confused, did you read his essay on the topic.  He pretty clearly explains his position on the BoA as well as why the gospel topics essay is flawed.  You'll have to decide for yourself what you believe about the BoA, and I believe that is largely a question of faith not of facts.  

What I think Ritner correctly and strongly argues in his essay is that the papyrus did not contain anything about the person Abraham and that many of the apologetic arguements do not hold up to serious scholarly scrutiny.  

He's says it's been confirmed. I'm just asking where I can read that confirmation. 

I didn't realize all he was saying was that his conclusions on the BOA have proven it's made up. 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a problem if people have a problem with it.  Surely you can see where certain people have a trust problem when Joseph claims to be doing something and it turns out that he was wrong.  This is pretty simple.  

For the BoA specifically, the claims about it by Joseph, and the subsequent assumptions by every church leader and the majority of the church membership since, has been that the BoA is a literal translation of the Egyptian on the papyri.  This is factually incorrect, and all the earlier attempts to prove otherwise have been debunked.  This is a problem for people who value honesty and trusted church leaders.  

Now, we can get to your other ideas about could a person consider the BoA as revelation or scripture, and with those ideas I totally agree with you.  Those are completely subjective questions of faith, have nothing to do with translation of Egyptian or anything.  Midrash is a good comparison.  

Could the stories even be historical, could God have been communicating something to Joseph that actually happened to a real guy named Abraham, yes.  There is no way of proving this true or false with any degree of certainty, we don't have access to records that go back that far.  

All the rest of what you mention I completely agree with, but this doesn't dismiss the problem of trusting the man Joseph Smith who claimed to be doing something that the evidence clearly shows he was not doing.  This also makes people question his reliability with respect to the BoM and other revelations he was having.  If he was wrong about the BoA, then what other things was he wrong about.  It really opens a can of worms for some people, not everyone, but it is a problem for some, so therefore its a problem.  

 

In my opinion it is only a problem for those who have only a rudimentary understanding of the nature of religion.

Quote

ts a problem if people have a problem with it.  Surely you can see where certain people have a trust problem when Joseph claims to be doing something and it turns out that he was wrong.  This is pretty simple.  

If they think prophets speak the literal God-breathed word of the Lord, you could be right.  But that's not the way it works.  They are mistaken.  It's like believing the world is 6000 years old.  If that's where there head is at, there is nothing much that can be done.  But anything could lose those people. There are only so many generations who will think that the world is 6000 years old- it's kind of like thinking the sun revolves around the earth.   Not many of those left any more I suppose.

Quote

For the BoA specifically, the claims about it by Joseph, and the subsequent assumptions by every church leader and the majority of the church membership since, has been that the BoA is a literal translation of the Egyptian on the papyri.  This is factually incorrect, and all the earlier attempts to prove otherwise have been debunked.  This is a problem for people who value honesty and trusted church leaders.

But the "church leaders" have made statements about that.  If they trust the church leaders they should listen to them.  If they do not trust the church leaders, it's all over anyway.

Quote

All the rest of what you mention I completely agree with, but this doesn't dismiss the problem of trusting the man Joseph Smith who claimed to be doing something that the evidence clearly shows he was not doing.  This also makes people question his reliability with respect to the BoM and other revelations he was having.  If he was wrong about the BoA, then what other things was he wrong about.  It really opens a can of worms for some people, not everyone, but it is a problem for some, so therefore its a problem.  

Reliability of revelations??  If they are ...... uninformed enough to think there is ANY way to judge the reliability of revelations other than what God tells you personally, they are not long for this religion thing anyway.

That sounds brutal perhaps but such is life- such things happen in all religions.  People might think Mohammad dreamed it all up without the angel, People might think the Pope is a fraud after looking into the history of Popes or conclude that talking donkeys and 6000 year earths and the sun standing still are tall stories and not "reliable" revelations or doubt that the death of one man takes away their sins

If that's where you are coming from it's all pretty preposterous you know.

There are a lot of people who do not get this stuff at all.   THAT is what we have to worry about- to teach them.

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He's says it's been confirmed. I'm just asking where I can read that confirmation. 

I didn't realize all he was saying was that his conclusions on the BOA have proven it's made up. 

That is precisely it isn't it?

He thinks it is all made up?  Not exactly an original criticism, is it?  Nothing much we can do with such folks I am afraid- they do not understand religion is about parables.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

He thinks it is all made up?  Not exactly an original criticism, is it?  Nothing much we can do with such folks I am afraid- they do not understand religion is about parables.

You mean made up stories and fables?

Sounds like you agree with him.

[cdowis]

del

Edited February 9, 2017 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

You mean made up stories and fables?

Sounds like you agree with him.

Parables are made up stories and fables?  Wow!  Have you ever taken a literature class?

Perhaps a course in reading comprehension would help.  I said it was not an original ciriticism and that we have seen again and again.  

But apparently you believe religion is NOT about parables, so I would conclude that you believe in a 6 thousand year old earth since that is what people think who do not think that religion is about parables

You can't have it both ways.   Either religion is largely about parables or it is literal and a science class.

Which is it?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Here is my list of indicators that JS believed he was translating specific Egyptian characters by the power of God:

- 3 BoA manuscripts in the hands of Joseph's scribes with Egyptian characters in the margins, which characters are in the same order as characters from next to facsimile 1 on Hor's Book of Breathings (see Ritner's essay).

- Joseph's statement that the papyri contained an account of Abraham and of Joseph.

- Joseph's statement that he learned about the doctrine of premortal life by translating the Egyptian papyri in his possession.

- The Alphabet and Grammar of the Egyptian language, which contains Egyptian characters and their translation. Several copies of this document exist, and one is in JS' hand writing. There is a journal account that says that a system of celestial astronomy was "unfolded" while he worked on the Egyptian Alphabet/Grammar, giving at least one indication that he believed revelation was involved in the process.

- According to Don Bradley's research, upon being presented with the Kinderhook plates, Joseph called for his Egyptian Alphabet/Grammar to begin an initial investigation, from which he matched a single character and determined what he thought the contents of the Kinderhook plates were. This suggests JS' trust in the Egyptian Alphabet/Grammar and the feeling of ownership he likely felt toward it.

- JS' translation of some of the Egyptian characters resulting in the beginning of an account of princess kitumin. The journal this account/translation is written in  specifies that it is a translation of characters from the papyri, which characters are copied in the journal (see the JS Papers website).

- JS' displaying of cuttings of papyri, saying one was a creation account written by Moses' hand.

- Last but not least, JS' translation of specific characters in the facsimiles.

I find that there is plenty of evidence, an overwhelming amount depending on your bias, that JS mistakenly believed he was translating specific Egyptian characters from the papyri. However, I still believe there is room for communion with the divine despite this inherently flawed process. Would that communion produce historical truth? IMO, probably not, but I do find that it can produce spiritually valuable material.

This is called the "catalyst theory" and is the theory presented by the church in the essay on the BOA.

[ttribe]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If you have a problem with it you should leave the church.   It's that simple.

Seriously?  Did you just invite someone to leave the Church?  Who gave you that kind of authority?

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Here is my list of indicators that JS believed he was translating specific Egyptian characters by the power of God:

- 3 BoA manuscripts in the hands of Joseph's scribes with Egyptian characters in the margins, which characters are in the same order as characters from next to facsimile 1 on Hor's Book of Breathings (see Ritner's essay).

- Joseph's statement that the papyri contained an account of Abraham and of Joseph.

- Joseph's statement that he learned about the doctrine of premortal life by translating the Egyptian papyri in his possession.

- The Alphabet and Grammar of the Egyptian language, which contains Egyptian characters and their translation. Several copies of this document exist, and one is in JS' hand writing. There is a journal account that says that a system of celestial astronomy was "unfolded" while he worked on the Egyptian Alphabet/Grammar, giving at least one indication that he believed revelation was involved in the process.

- According to Don Bradley's research, upon being presented with the Kinderhook plates, Joseph called for his Egyptian Alphabet/Grammar to begin an initial investigation, from which he matched a single character and determined what he thought the contents of the Kinderhook plates were. This suggests JS' trust in the Egyptian Alphabet/Grammar and the feeling of ownership he likely felt toward it.

- JS' translation of some of the Egyptian characters resulting in the beginning of an account of princess kitumin. The journal this account/translation is written in  specifies that it is a translation of characters from the papyri, which characters are copied in the journal (see the JS Papers website).

- JS' displaying of cuttings of papyri, saying one was a creation account written by Moses' hand.

- Last but not least, JS' translation of specific characters in the facsimiles.

I find that there is plenty of evidence, an overwhelming amount depending on your bias, that JS mistakenly believed he was translating specific Egyptian characters from the papyri. However, I still believe there is room for communion with the divine despite this inherently flawed process. Would that communion produce historical truth? IMO, probably not, but I do find that it can produce spiritually valuable material.

I'd agree.  With all that said, I'd suggest there's still some room for the BoA to be an inspired piece and perhaps the catalyst theory is a possibilty.  Thus, Ritner's conclusion of "confirmed as a perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith" feels a little premature.  Then again, maybe not.  maybe it is a bit of an invention of Joseph Smith in that it might not be best thought of as literal history.  And with that said, it makes one wonder how that fits in with all of scripture. 

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

He's says it's been confirmed. I'm just asking where I can read that confirmation. 

I didn't realize all he was saying was that his conclusions on the BOA have proven it's made up. 

Its not just his conclusions, its the data as well.  He's not on a lone island with his conclusions.  There isn't one non-LDS scholar out there that agrees with the apologetic theories that have been proposed.  Also, many LDS scholars have different interpretations of the data some even that are very close too and knowledgeable of the BoA like Brian Hauglid.  

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I find that there is plenty of evidence, an overwhelming amount depending on your bias, that JS mistakenly believed he was translating specific Egyptian characters from the papyri. However, I still believe there is room for communion with the divine despite this inherently flawed process. Would that communion produce historical truth? IMO, probably not, but I do find that it can produce spiritually valuable material.

This is an excellent list, very nice job! 

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Seriously?  Did you just invite someone to leave the Church?  Who gave you that kind of authority?

No its far better to stay and waste your life griping on message boards. The resentment is good for your health

 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

No its far better to stay and waste your life griping on message boards. The resentment is good for your health

 

Nice dodge, but it is rather beside the point; which is - you don't get to decide you stays and goes and overt invitations to leave are far more harmful than you may realize.