By His Own Biased Hand

[David Bokovoy]

One of the favorite resources employed by many contemporary critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Robert K. Ritnerâ??s â??The Breathing Permit of Hor Among the Joseph Smith Papyri,â? in JNES 62 (2003): 161-180.

Personally, I have no problem with Ritnerâ??s assessment of the papyri as an Egyptologist. As witnessed through Michael D. Rhodes translation of the Hor Book of Breathings published by FARMS and dedicated to Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Latter-day Saints welcome a correct understanding of the Egyptian documents.

For Latter-day Saints, recognizing the meaning given these texts by those familiar with the language and religious culture(s) of ancient Egypt only enhances the meaning of the documents. Contrary to what the critics claim, neither Ritnerâ??s nor Rhodeâ??s translations/commentary proves that the Book of Abraham is not scripture.

Though I welcome the insights offered by Ritner in his article, I do not appreciate the biased tone Ritner employed throughout his assessment. Unfortunately, Ritnerâ??s bias against the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints renders the article non-scholarly. His essay is unbecoming the Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

As explained in the Society for Biblical Literature Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, academic articles should employ â??bias-freeâ? writing:

â??Bias-free writing respects all cultures, people, and religions. Many readers would now regard as biased once-common usages such as Indian instead of the now preferred Native American. Uncritical use of biblical characterizations as the Jews or the Pharisees can perpetuate religious and ethnic stereotypes. Also be aware of the connotations of alternative expressions such as the following pairs: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament; Second Temple period, intertestamential period; deuterocanonical literature, Apocryphaâ? (pg. 17).

In his article, Ritner violates these guidelines and reveals his bias against Latter-day Christians. For example, in his introduction, Ritnerâ??s use of several key words in italics suggests that that the issue addressed is not in fact a legitimate description. On page 161, this includes â??translationâ? in reference to Josephâ??s work, â??revelationâ? in reference to the lifting of the Priesthood ban, and â??scriptureâ? in reference to the BofA.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible is â??scriptureâ? to many people, just as The Book of Abraham is â??scriptureâ? to Latter-day Christians and the Qurâ??an is scripture to Muslims. Hence, to set the word apart with quotation marks as if these books are not in fact â??scriptureâ? would reveal the authorâ??s biases and in fact render the article as nonobjective.

Ritner then uses such terms as â??outlandishâ? to describe the word â??Jah-oh-ehâ? as an Egyptian reference to earth and describes the words â??Obliblishâ? and â??Enish-go-on-dooshâ? as sheer â??nonsenseâ? (161) In footnote 4 on page 162, Ritner refers to the Book of Abraham as â??Smithâ??s hopeless translation,â? and on page 162, Ritner refers to the observations of T. Deveria as demonstrating the â??absurdities in the supposed translation and woodcut vignettes.â? Referring to Facsimile 1 in the BofA, Ritner states that â??the image has been grotesquely misrepresented as a human sacrifice in the text of The Book of Abraham (Ab 1:11-14)â? (pg. 168).

All of these statements, and yet, still Ritner claims to approach the issue of Baerâ??s original translation and the BofA in order to offer up (LOL), â??an impartial reassessmentâ? (pg. 164).

Imagine a scholarly article that assessed Matthewâ??s interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic reference to Jesus Christ as sheer â??nonsense.â? After all Isaiahâ??s prophecy had a clear historical context missed in Matthewâ??s reinterpretation through which the pre-exilic author intended for his sign of judgment to be fulfilled. Perhaps Matthewâ??s use of Isaiah 7:14, therefore, was a â??hopelessâ? interpretation.

Or perhaps an academic essay that described the biblical authorâ??s interpretation of the name Cushan-rishathaim i.e., â??Dark-Doubled-Evil-One,â? given to the King of Aram-naharaim in Judges 3:8 as â??outlandishâ? from a historical perspective.

If articles that allegedly feature a pro-LDS bias are simply dismissed by critics as â??non-academic,â? why should Ritnerâ??s article receive special treatment in their hands?

The fact of the matter is that Josephâ??s work with the Egyptian papyri led to the production of a scriptural text for Latter-day Saints, a book that when all is said and done, produces some amazing parallels with a variety of religious perspectives now known to have operated in the ancient Near Eastâ??including in the hearts and minds of biblical Israel.

[Bernard Gui]

But David...don't you know about the unspoken rule yet?

It's written in invisible ink just behind

â??Bias-free writing respects all cultures, people, and religions."

If you hold this up to an ultra-violet light at midnight

following the first full moon in October, you will see this:

"All except the Mormons, of course."

Bernard

[noel00]

David, Helloooooooo I think the paper by Ritner, even with flaws shows that Smith did not know what he was talking about. Elsewhere on this board CK shows the BOB and Fac matched together neither which have anything to do with Abraham. I often wonder if your mind partitioned like a HD. You study in a reputable University with a former Mormon (Wright) and yet come here and defend the BOA. Ritner I notice has am impressive publishing CV I am sure your hope to have one day. Perhaps you might go to a SBL session and defend the BOM as a legitimate book of scripture. At least you won't have to worry about different manuscripts (the Bible), oral tradition etc, just explain how the book came from some gold plates, translated by a man looking into a stone in a hat. I am sure that would go down well with your peers in the Biblical Studies field.

[Chris Smith]

David,

I believe it is possible to make an unbiased study of a document and still conclude that it is "nonsense." Scholars make these kinds of proclamations about other scholars' work all the time. The important thing is that any such conclusion is drawn only after responsible research has been conducted. In other words, the conclusion must proceed from the research rather than the research proceeding from the conclusion. I don't think you've demonstrated that Ritner's conclusion was pre-formed in his mind prior to his having researched the topic.

Still, I do tend to prefer that scholars maintain a neutral tone when presenting their conclusions in academic articles.

-CK

[Daniel Peterson]

David, Helloooooooo I think the paper by Ritner, even with flaws shows that Smith did not know what he was talking about.

And David doesn't.

The contest appears to be a draw.

But, if I cast my vote, the Mormons take the lead.

So what?

I often wonder if your mind partitioned like a HD. You study in a reputable University with a former Mormon (Wright) and yet come here and defend the BOA.

The fact that David Wright and David Bokovoy disagree on a given issue doesn't, in and of itself, appear to demonstrate that David Bokovoy is wrong about that issue. I know David Wright well. He isn't inerrant. He doesn't claim to be.

Perhaps you might go to a SBL session and defend the BOM as a legitimate book of scripture. At least you won't have to worry about different manuscripts (the Bible), oral tradition etc, just explain how the book came from some gold plates, translated by a man looking into a stone in a hat. I am sure that would go down well with your peers in the Biblical Studies field.

What, besides demonstrating your comprehensive rejection of Mormonism and Mormon claims, does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

Incidentally, several critics seem to think that the continued failure of Latter-day Saint scholars to take up the kind of challenge that you issue represents a powerful argument against Mormonism. But it doesn't. It's just na

[PacMan]

To reiterate from another thread, I don't question Ritner as an Egyptologist, but frankly, much of the "anti-" literature quote Ritner while posing himself as a historian. These historical assumptions are critical to the anti- claims, and have never been challenged because Ritner is of course an expert. Some of Ritner's comments, however, are embarrassingly incorrect and tremble the foundation of the claim that the manuscript came from the adjacent characters. Is it still possible? Certainly, but considering an actual history of those times, I find the assumption tremendously problematic.

PacMan

[Theophilus07]

One of the favorite resources employed by many contemporary critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Robert K. Ritnerâ??s â??The Breathing Permit of Hor Among the Joseph Smith Papyri,â? in JNES 62 (2003): 161-180.

Though I welcome the insights offered by Ritner in his article, I do not appreciate the biased tone Ritner employed throughout his assessment. Unfortunately, Ritnerâ??s bias against the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints renders the article non-scholarly. His essay is unbecoming the Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

I thought there was a little bias in Dr. Ritner's scholarly article, too, but then I also see bias in apologists' material produced by FARMS.

Dr. Ritner's criticsms of Dr. Gee's work and lack of adherence to normal scholarly protocol were made in a peer-reviewed academic journal of global reputation. The apologists' rebuttal to Ritner was made in an LDS apologist publication. FARMS has noticeably upgraded the quality of apologists' work, but the reality is that distribution of LDS apologist publications reach fewer of the experts than do academic journals. If you or FARMS are confidant that your criticisms of Dr. Ritner's judgement about Dr. Gee's work and lack of adherence to standard scholarly protocol are sufficiently valid and sufficiently supported by research and conclusions, then I would think it would be entirely appropriate for you or FARMS to respond in the same forum the criticism appeared.

Theophilus07

[Dale]

I only read and listened to a bit of Ritner. He does not convince me. I have more concerns about Ritners work than I have about John Gee's work at this point.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=561

[rameumptom]

The problem I often find when a scholar attempts a scholarly review of the Mormon scripture, is that it is narrowly focused. While I agree with Ritner that the sensen manuscript probably did not in a normal convention contain the Book of Abraham, we are talking about non-conventional events.

For example, Joseph's term for "translation" is very different from how the word is used by today's scholars. Did he literally translate the Book of Mormon when his focus was fixed on the Urim and Thummim/seer stone most of the time? How about the Bible "translation"? How often does a Biblical translation lend itself to new writings that were not previously, nor currently found in any extant texts? How do we explain the Book of Moses, writings on Melchizedek and Joseph, etc., if it was a literal translation? Of course, in the D&C, we also have his translating an ancient document that the apostle John wrote and hid under a rock!

To me, it is very clear as we study Joseph's translation technique that what he was actually doing was using texts as a catalyst for revelation. It is immaterial whether the document translates exactly or not, because the Lord would and did use the document (such as the Bible) to give more information. In such a case, even the Kinderhook Plates could bring about an actual "translation" of ancient teachings.

Ritner neglected to really study the content of the Book of Abraham. Have you ever noticed that non-LDS scholars discussing the BoA, never seem to mention the ancient Abrahamic traditions that keep showing up and suggesting an ancient setting for the BoA? How is it that we now have Egyptian papyri that do have Abraham's name on it, dating to the same time frame as the Chandler Papyri? Why are these issues never discussed nor researched by the Ritners in the world? Are they too busy? Are they too inept? Too lazy? Or are they too smug to look beyond the little issues they have brought up that convinces them that they are God's gift to Mormon archaeology?

Rameumptom

[Daniel Peterson]

The apologists' rebuttal to Ritner was made in an LDS apologist publication.

Well, yes and no. Mostly no. We haven't responded much to Ritner yet.

But you might, if you care, try to follow John Gee's very active program of scholarly presentations and publications in Egyptological venues. Not all of them, by any means, respond to Ritner. But more than a few do. Quite methodically.

FARMS has noticeably upgraded the quality of apologists' work, but the reality is that distribution of LDS apologist publications reach fewer of the experts than do academic journals.

True.

If you or FARMS are confidant that your criticisms of Dr. Ritner's judgement about Dr. Gee's work and lack of adherence to standard scholarly protocol are sufficiently valid and sufficiently supported by research and conclusions, then I would think it would be entirely appropriate for you or FARMS to respond in the same forum the criticism appeared.

See above.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Noel00,

David, Helloooooooo I think the paper by Ritner, even with flaws shows that Smith did not know what he was talking about.

I would agree that Joseph had no idea how to produce a correct literal Egyptological rendering of the papyri. Then again, such a translation would have little scriptural significance to Latter-day Saints, especially when compared with the deep doctrinal treasures produced through Josephâ??s inspired translation.

From my perspective, the sheer fact that the Book of Abraham presents a council of the Gods working together to create the earth, references to the council in terms of astronomical phenomena, and a council scene in which the head God calls together the assembly to resolve a crisis, followed by discussion, and one volunteering to serve as Savior, completely contradicts your assessment of Josephâ?? work.

In fact, given what we now know about Near Eastern traditions, including those featured in the Bible, I believe that Joseph knew a lot more than you are willing to credit him with.

I often wonder if your mind partitioned like a HD. You study in a reputable University with a former Mormon (Wright) and yet come here and defend the BOA.

I believe that the Book of Abraham is scripture. I also believe that the book features some amazingly profound connections with biblical views concerning the divine council (a topic that I do know a little bit about).

I also have no problem whatsoever accepting the basic accuracy of Ritnerâ??s assessment of the Egyptian meaning behind the papyri.

Not that he needs its, but Iâ??ve defended David Wright on more than one occasion. David and I actually hold very similar views on most issues pertaining to the Bible and even later-day scripture (there are some differences, mind you, but I think I understand where he's coming from).

Notwithstanding Davidâ??s views concerning The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham, you would be hard pressed to find language used by Wright similar to what Ritner employs in his JNES article. Ritnerâ??s tone was inappropriate. Moreover, from my perspective, none of his observations concerning the Egyptian meaning associated with the papyri leads to the conclusion that The Book of Abraham is not â??scripture,â? that Josephâ??s work was not a â??translation,â? as the term was used in the 19th century, and that Josephâ??s interpretation of the material was â??absurdâ? or even wrong for that matter.

Ritner I notice has am impressive publishing CV I am sure your hope to have one day.

Ritnerâ??s â??impressive publishing CVâ? does not negate the fact that his article features a strong anti-Mormon bias. Yes, I hope that before my academic career is spent that I will have had a few noteworthy articles and even a book or two to contribute, but holding an â??impressive publishing CVâ? is really not a major driver in my life.

Perhaps you might go to a SBL session and defend the BOM as a legitimate book of scripture. At least you won't have to worry about different manuscripts (the Bible), oral tradition etc, just explain how the book came from some gold plates, translated by a man looking into a stone in a hat. I am sure that would go down well with your peers in the Biblical Studies field.

Oh, Iâ??ve never been one to keep my identity and/or views hidden. I have no fears of letting anyone in the academic world know that I accept a book which â??came from some gold plates, translated by a man looking into a stone in a hatâ? as an authentic, scriptural account.

Why should I? It's not like you're going to find anything about talking donkeys, a man living in a fish's belly, or references to floating axe heads in the book.

[Stargazer]

To me, it is very clear as we study Joseph's translation technique that what he was actually doing was using texts as a catalyst for revelation. It is immaterial whether the document translates exactly or not, because the Lord would and did use the document (such as the Bible) to give more information. In such a case, even the Kinderhook Plates could bring about an actual "translation" of ancient teachings.

I hesitate to chime in on this, due to a noticeable lack of scholarly ability, but as much as this paragraph found a great deal of resonance with me, I seem to recall that contemporaneous eyewitness descriptions of the JS Papyri suggest that what we have today is but a shadow of what JS had. Also that the descriptions of the papyri from which he translated (by whatever means) the BoA do not match the papyri we have today.

I gather that the critics do not care for this as a argument against their objections.

[maklelan]

The problem I often find when a scholar attempts a scholarly review of the Mormon scripture, is that it is narrowly focused. While I agree with Ritner that the sensen manuscript probably did not in a normal convention contain the Book of Abraham, we are talking about non-conventional events.

For example, Joseph's term for "translation" is very different from how the word is used by today's scholars. Did he literally translate the Book of Mormon when his focus was fixed on the Urim and Thummim/seer stone most of the time? How about the Bible "translation"? How often does a Biblical translation lend itself to new writings that were not previously, nor currently found in any extant texts? How do we explain the Book of Moses, writings on Melchizedek and Joseph, etc., if it was a literal translation? Of course, in the D&C, we also have his translating an ancient document that the apostle John wrote and hid under a rock!

To me, it is very clear as we study Joseph's translation technique that what he was actually doing was using texts as a catalyst for revelation. It is immaterial whether the document translates exactly or not, because the Lord would and did use the document (such as the Bible) to give more information. In such a case, even the Kinderhook Plates could bring about an actual "translation" of ancient teachings.

Ritner neglected to really study the content of the Book of Abraham. Have you ever noticed that non-LDS scholars discussing the BoA, never seem to mention the ancient Abrahamic traditions that keep showing up and suggesting an ancient setting for the BoA? How is it that we now have Egyptian papyri that do have Abraham's name on it, dating to the same time frame as the Chandler Papyri? Why are these issues never discussed nor researched by the Ritners in the world? Are they too busy? Are they too inept? Too lazy? Or are they too smug to look beyond the little issues they have brought up that convinces them that they are God's gift to Mormon archaeology?

Rameumptom

But everyone refuses to engage the Book of Abraham on these terms. They've decided that the validity of our understanding of the Book of Abraham is too be tested only within contexts that they feel provide them with the best argument. Like Nibley was told, it's not what the Egyptian says that will vindicate the Book of Abraham, it's the English; but Ritner and the rest have decided to ignore the English entirely and instead engage an argument that they've constructed themselves.

[Smith]

I would like to thank the contributors to this thread, all of them, for their posts. They have helped me to understand things regarding the BoA a bit more clearly. Something that I don't really know a great deal about.

[noel00]

I often wonder if some of us are on different planets. CK has put it out in plain english that arguments that Smith pretended that the BOB contained the BOA. The plain logic of CKs and others arguments has LDS scurrying for evidence to find some evidence from the contents of the BOA. The game played now is shoot the messanger be it Ritner, Ashment, Thompson etc.

[maklelan]

I often wonder if some of us are on different planets. CK has put it out in plain english that arguments that Smith pretended that the BOB contained the BOA. The plain logic of CKs and others arguments has LDS scurrying for evidence to find some evidence from the contents of the BOA. The game played now is shoot the messanger be it Ritner, Ashment, Thompson etc.

Hugh Nibley wrote in bold letters across two pages of his book when he was asked to investigate the papyri that it contained a version of book of the dead. Nobody has denied that, as far as I can tell. the problem is trying to reconcile the idea that Joseph Smith simply made up the Book of Abraham with the fact that the book is perfectly consistent with the literary motif, the nomenclature, the toponyms and the culture of the time period from which it claims to come. Rather than engage this evidence, however, critics want to turn the issue into whether or not it is an accurate literal translation. The problem is that Joseph Smith has never used the word "translation" in the way that we now understand it. He "translated" the book of Moses right out of thin air, but no one seems concerned with that. He "translated" the Book of Mormon without looking at the plates. He "translated" Matthew with no foreign text. With his use of the word translate it is silly to insist that the Book of Abraham must be judged within the contexts of a modern and literal translation of the text. No one, it seems, has the gumption to deal with the English, though, which is what I find quite amusing. Everyone glares down their snouts at us stupid little mormons but no one even dares to deal with the English as a modern translation of an ancient text.

[Dale]

I think the real debate won't be between John Gee, and Robert Ritner. The upcoming debate will be between Brent Metcalfe, and if I recall the name right Brian Hauglid. Brent Metcalfe will be publishing the Kirtland Papers, and a set of essays on the Book of Abraham. It will be at that time things like John Gee's Handwriting analysis will be put to the test.

[David Bokovoy]

Hugh Nibley wrote in bold letters across two pages of his book when he was asked to investigate the papyri that it contained a version of book of the dead. Nobody has denied that, as far as I can tell. the problem is trying to reconcile the idea that Joseph Smith simply made up the Book of Abraham with the fact that the book is perfectly consistent with the literary motif, the nomenclature, the toponyms and the culture of the time period from which it claims to come. Rather than engage this evidence, however, critics want to turn the issue into whether or not it is an accurate literal translation. The problem is that Joseph Smith has never used the word "translation" in the way that we now understand it. He "translated" the book of Moses right out of thin air, but no one seems concerned with that. He "translated" the Book of Mormon without looking at the plates. He "translated" Matthew with no foreign text. With his use of the word translate it is silly to insist that the Book of Abraham must be judged within the contexts of a modern and literal translation of the text. No one, it seems, has the gumption to deal with the English, though, which is what I find quite amusing. Everyone glares down their snouts at us stupid little mormons but no one even dares to deal with the English as a modern translation of an ancient text.

Very well stated Mak!

The first definition offered in Noah Websterâ??s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language that addresses any issue other than â??to remove from one place to anotherâ? for the verb â??translateâ? is the definition â??to interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another.â?

Joseph Smith provided an inspired translation, i.e. â??interpretationâ? of the Egyptian facsimiles. I believe that as the Prophet worked on these ancient texts that the Lord opened his mind to a celestial downpour in which Joseph received an inspired interpretation of the papyri.

[Sargon]

To me, it is very clear as we study Joseph's translation technique that what he was actually doing was using texts as a catalyst for revelation. It is immaterial whether the document translates exactly or not, because the Lord would and did use the document (such as the Bible) to give more information. In such a case, even the Kinderhook Plates could bring about an actual "translation" of ancient teachings.

I wonder how we might feel if the gold plates were discovered to not contain the Book of Mormon.

Sargon

[Dale]

One option is the Lord may have wanted to keep Joseph and his scribes busy. So he simply because they were to dumb to get the point allowed them to try and match up a large text with a small one. The Lord with Abraham allowed him to assume for quite awhile he was to sacrifice Issac. Why couldn't the Lord command something misleading? Why couldn't God use the papyrus as catalyst? He didn't neccessarily state what was upon the papyrus? He just gave Joseph Smith content unrelated to the papyrus, and let Joseph Smith think what he would about what was on it.

With Ritner he has not as far as I can tell dealt with pro-Book of Abraham evidences. Until he does take on Kerry Shirts, or Abrahamic Lore in support of the Book of Abraham I see no value in his writing for me. I want to read critics that are actually a student of current pro-Book of Abraham scholarship. I havn't read critic's of the book that have that knowledge outside of Brent Metcalfe a bit. I anxiously await publication news on his projects.

[cdowis]

Here is the bottom line facts:

1. The sensen manuscript was not written by "the hand of Abraham". It was written centuries later.

2. The literal translation of this manuscript is not the text of the BOA.

3. The manuscript is indeed the BOA, according to Joseph Smith.

4. The EAG may have something to do with the translation.

I know only one theory which reconciles these four items.

[Luigi]

While it has been argued that scientists should respect religion it is certainly not been the historical precedent for religionists to respect science, especially when the two have contradicted.

But that aside I think that Ritner in this case was simply trying to dispell any doubts concerning the misguided Egyptological defense of some apologist or orthodox views surrounding the BoA. Perhaps one could argue that such assertions were brazen or influenced by bias, but I think one would have to bring a reputable Egyptologist to publicly challenge Ritner's statements(ie willing to stake HIS reputation on refuting such claims) to make such an argument-something I think he is fairly confident will never happen.

[Daniel Peterson]

While it has been argued that scientists should respect religion it is certainly not been the historical precedent for religionists to respect science, especially when the two have contradicted.

I suspect that you're assuming roughly the same na

[Olavarria]

Here is the bottom line facts:

1. The sensen manuscript was not written by "the hand of Abraham". It was written centuries later.

agreed

2. The literal translation of this manuscript is not the text of the BOA.

agreed

3. The manuscript is indeed the BOA, according to Joseph Smith.

When did Joseph say this? Prove it.

4. The EAG may have something to do with the translation.

Agreed, but WHAT do they have to do with the translation?

[aka]

delete.