Boa Correction Theory, Why Didn'T Joseph Know?

[MormonMason]

The way I read that scripture, the Facsimile must be considered a part of the BoA.

I don't disagree. The TEXT of the Book of Abraham, however, is gone. For the Book of Breathing, however, the text surrounding the first vignette has nothing to do with the vignette. The warning/instructions at the front of the roll following the vignette and preceding the Book of Breathing also has nothing to do with the vignette. And, the placement of the warning/instruction is supposed to be at the end in documents that have it, either after or before the final vignette, if any.

[MormonMason]

So if I may summarize: The facsimiles are not literally the story of Abraham but may have been used by Abraham or a later person, barrowed from another text, and used to represent the story of Abraham. Is that somewhat correct?

Possibly. Again, however, I need to stress the nature of the first vignette. It is not your normal funerary vignette. It has elements from the traditional format of such vignettes but the elements make little sense in light of those traditional canons. It is a living person on the bier, and not even the whole man is on the bier. He is only on his back in the vignette, with his legs kicking off of the bier and the priest standing between his legs and the bier. That looks to me like a struggle of some kind. His hands are elevated (both of them), not in the proper position of palm closer to face with elbow elevated and bent outward, and there is no hand at his side. He is clothed and decorated rather than mummiform or nude.

This man is quite alive and not deceased. This is no embalming scene. A man has to be dead to be embalmed and mummified. The extant word in the vignette has something to do with offering or sacrifice. The crocodile in the water is something expected in sacrificial vignettes. What story does that sound like to you?

I have more to say about this but I have just been called away. I will have to come back later and finish my thoughts--if finish them I may be permitted.

[ERayR]

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a made up existence somewhat like Jim Carrey was in the movie "The Truman Show". Can't we just move on with this and say JS made a mistake?

We could but that would not be honest or accurate.

[CA Steve]

Facsimile#1 is not an embalming scene, it is a common reanimation scene of Anubis tending to a reawakening Osiris whose posture may be found in contemporary temple settings that, like the Book of Breathings, were designed by a narrow priestly circle. His moment of wakening is singled by having his hand held to his face. As Osiris may be shown swathed in mummy wrappings, the kilt on the vignette poses no problem.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Facsimile#1 is not an embalming scene, it is a common reanimation scene of Anubis tending to a reawakening Osiris whose posture may be found in contemporary temple settings that, like the Book of Breathings, were designed by a narrow priestly circle. His moment of wakening is singled by having his hand held to his face. As Osiris may be shown swathed in mummy wrappings, the kilt on the vignette poses no problem.

You know I have been in or read lots of debates. This meme gets brought up alot. I would love for you to show me a vignette like the one that JS had. All of them I have seen show the person with closed eyes and only one leg is visble and no hands are visible. This is clearly not a standard vignette. At least you are not claiming it to be a comon enbalming scene. Seems you have at least learned one thing.

I will say that I agree with Will that if the church got rid of the facimilies I would not be up set about it. I am not convinced that people have the correct understand of facimilies and I am not convinced that JS was trying to teach anything that has to do with Egypt with them. IOW I am not convinced that he was tyring to teach a revealved truth or that he decifered them.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[yootaw]

I don't disagree. The TEXT of the Book of Abraham, however, is gone. For the Book of Breathing, however, the text surrounding the first vignette has nothing to do with the vignette. The warning/instructions at the front of the roll following the vignette and preceding the Book of Breathing also has nothing to do with the vignette. And, the placement of the warning/instruction is supposed to be at the end in documents that have it, either after or before the final vignette, if any.

But there is text on the original scroll, next to the imagery represented by Facsimile #1, none of which is related to the Book of Abraham.

[CA Steve]

You know I have been in or read lots of debates. This meme gets brought up alot. I would love for you to show me a vignette like the one that JS had. All of them I have seen show the person with closed eyes and only one leg is visble and no hands are visible. This is clearly not a standard vignette. At least you are not claiming it to be a comon enbalming scene. Seems you have at least learned one thing.

I will say that I agree with Will that if the church got rid of the facimilies I would not be up set about it. I am not convinced that people have the correct understand of facimilies and I am not convinced that JS was trying to teach anything that has to do with Egypt with them. IOW I am not convinced that he was tyring to teach a revealved truth or that he decifered them.

Mola,

I will be the first to admit I am not an expert but I am trying to understand how the Book of Abraham came to be. Here are some back ground notes I have on The Book of Breathings.

First of all from Laney Bell's essay "The Ancient Egyptian "Book of Breathings" in "Egypt and Beyond" a series of essays presented to Leonard Lesko upon his retirement, is the following observations regarding "The Book of Breathings".

"The Book of Breathings constitute a corpus of Graeco-Roman funerary compositions related to the Book of the Dead. All versions seen to have originated in the Theban area and Anum play an important role in them. The distinctive text of "The Breathing Permit" consist of 17 sections (paragraphs or divisions) is fixed, with very little deviation. In marked contrast, the few vignettes accompanying this text are not standardized but display great variation. This cluster of texts is thought to have been in use only during a very restricted time range."

Last I checked Marc Coenen had identified 32 of these types of permits.

Coenen says

PS1 features a portrayal of the resurrection of the god Osiris and the conception of his son Horus, a well-known scene in the Osiris mysteries depicted on Egyptian temple walls but for which no other parallels on papyrus are presently known to exist.

Now regarding another similar vignette. Ritner, on page 91 of "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri" shows a "particularly close parallel to the Smith vignette" with legs separated and a hand to the face..

Ritner also notes

A vignette of the corpse in the process of reanimation is common in Books of Breathings, where it serves as a pendant to a scene of the deceased at the court of Osiris. P. JS 1 has inverted the typical order of these vignettes, with the resurrection scene placed first (Fragment 1) and the court scene moved to the end (Facsimile #3). Correspondingly, the directions for the use of the text have been shifted by the ancient copyist from the end of the papyrus to its beginning.

I also have this note written down but no reference at this time, though Bell and Ritner above seems to agree with it. I will try and track down its source.

"Documents of Breathing Made By Isis typically have am introductory and concluding vignette. While this particular vignette (Fac#1) is not found in any other copy of the Documents of Breathing, the illustrations vary considerable from document to document, this isn't the only one with unique features.

Edited to add more notes.

Edited September 29, 2012 by CA Steve

[MormonMason]

But there is text on the original scroll, next to the imagery represented by Facsimile #1, none of which is related to the Book of Abraham.

The text around the vignette isn't connected to the vignette, either.

[MormonMason]

Facsimile#1 is not an embalming scene, it is a common reanimation scene of Anubis tending to a reawakening Osiris whose posture may be found in contemporary temple settings that, like the Book of Breathings, were designed by a narrow priestly circle. His moment of wakening is singled by having his hand held to his face. As Osiris may be shown swathed in mummy wrappings, the kilt on the vignette poses no problem.

I am out and about but am stopping by to comment. I lost my train of thought and will have to recall where I was going but for now, I will comment briefly about this.

Yes, it is not an embalming scene. I am glad that you recognize that. A lot of people still ignorantly claim that is what the vignette represents.

No, it is not a common reanimation scene. In resurrection scenes it is one hand to the face, not two before the face. In resurrection scenes, the figure either is nude or mummiform. And, yes, the kilt (not to mention anklets) does pose a problem. It is a man who is clothed. Mummy wrappings would definitely be funerary. No mummy wrappings on the first vignette.

I have looked at the contemporary temple settings. Show me one that has the "Anubis" figure STANDING BETWEEN the legs and the bier. Show me one that has the legs OFF the bier with two hands elevated before the face but not to the face. I have yet to see one.

On your mention of the reference on page 91 of the Ritner book, does Ritner identify the number and location of the papyrus that he claims is remarkably similar? If so, what is it?

[CA Steve]

I am out and about but am stopping by to comment. I lost my train of thought and will have to recall where I was going but for now, I will comment briefly about this.

Yes, it is not an embalming scene. I am glad that you recognize that. A lot of people still ignorantly claim that is what the vignette represents.

No, it is not a common reanimation scene. In resurrection scenes it is one hand to the face, not two before the face. In resurrection scenes, the figure either is nude or mummiform. And, yes, the kilt (not to mention anklets) does pose a problem. It is a man who is clothed. Mummy wrappings would definitely be funerary. No mummy wrappings on the first vignette.

I have looked at the contemporary temple settings. Show me one that has the "Anubis" figure STANDING BETWEEN the legs and the bier. Show me one that has the legs OFF the bier with two hands elevated before the face but not to the face. I have yet to see one.

On your mention of the reference on page 91 of the Ritner book, does Ritner identify the number and location of the papyrus that he claims is remarkably similar? If so, what is it?

Hi MM,

By "common reanimation scene" I think what is meant is themes not exact reproductions. Might I suggest reading the Lanny Bell essay that I reference above, if you have not already. He answers many of your questions much better than I can and provides many examples of scenes who share similar characteristics. It can easily be found by a Google search of "Egypt & Beyond" Lanny Bell. It is a short read of only 23 pages but discusses in depth the fact that when it comes to the type of scene we are discussing, whether it is on papyri or a scene from the temple walls of the same priests who prepared these very specialized individual Breathing texts, variation is the norm. Here are a couple more quotes from the paper.

It should be observed that in ancient Egyptian art no strict iconographic cannon was imposed on all versions of a single type scene, therefore variations occur among individual representations. Since each example was hand-produced, and not stenciled, even "direct copies" are not identical in every detail.

and

I doubt one could find many examples of exactly identical scenes in Egyptian art.

The Ritner scene quoted in not from a papyrus, rather it is a from the "West Osiris Chapel". I think focusing on the uniqueness of the scene as evidence of anything is misleading since variation is the norm. As Bell notes:

The few vignettes accompanying this text {Books of Breathings} are not standardized but display great variation.

[MormonMason]

I have read the Lanny Bell article and have a copy somewhere at home. He contradicts Ritner's and Parker's idea that there is only one hand, by the way.

Yes, there are differences. The key, however, is in the significant differences.

Ritner is full of crap about the 'West Chapel' and how it relates to the first vignette. The differences between the two also are substantial. In the West Chapel the figure does not have his legs off the bier. There is no figure standing in the position displayed on the first vignette of P. JS-I. There is only one hand up and to the face, with the other at the figure's side. Not so with the first vignette of P. JS-I.

Again, the legs are OFF the bier in the first vignette of P. JS-I. A figure stands between the legs and the bier, not either in front or behind. Two hands are up but not to the face. The figure on his back on the bier is fully clothed, complete with accessories, not mummiform, not wrapped in bandages, and not nude. There is an extant word on the vignette itself that has to do with the context of sacrifice or offering. It is much more than mere variation. It is unique. To date, there has not been found another like it.

Even with the other ones that differ from one another, even with their differences, the similarities are more numerous between them with respect to their classes. Not so in the case of the first vignette of P. JS-I. The differences between it and the others is significant. And, its mention of something to do with sacrifice or offering is significant when we consider the story that the Book of Abraham attaches to the vignette.

[yootaw]

The text around the vignette isn't connected to the vignette, either.

Can you help me understand how you've reached that conclusion? I had understood previously that it was connected to the vignette, that this is where we got the name Hor from.

Edited September 29, 2012 by yootaw

[MormonMason]

Can you help me understand how you've reached that conclusion? I had understood previously that it was connected to the vignette, that this is where we got the name Hor from.

1. There is no name in/on the vignette that became Facsimile 1. The only extant text that is left in/on it is a word that is used in the context of sacrifice and/or fitness for offering.

2. The Egyptian text surrounding the vignette does not address the elements of the vignette and says nothing regarding sacrifice. In fact, the text quite clearly speaks concerning burial in the West. The vignette in the midst of the text is neither a burial nor an embalming scene, which it would have to be in order for the surrounding hieroglyphic text to address the vignette.

Thus, this surrounding text has nothing to do with the vignette it surrounds. Does that clarify things a bit?

[Ritner, I think realizing this, reconstructs and renders into an invocation, even though there is no room for his reconstruction without at least one additional column, getting rid of his Isis bird and forcing him recently to postulate a winged solar disk since Lanny Bell pointed out that there isn't enough room for an Isis kestrel (but even there he conflicts with Lanny Bell, who has gone on record to state that evidence shows that the figure on the bier has two hands up, which led Bell to speculate that the figure is perhaps reaching both hands upward to embrace his Ba), and interprets the extant word as "justification" for reasons known only to himself (I have yet to see evidence supporting this interpretation), but I suspect it was to bend this vignette toward fitting the text around it and I know also for a fact that he did it to address directly a statement John Gee made regarding the text not being an invocation to a deity. But, this is the subject of further discussion.]

Edited September 30, 2012 by MormonMason

[yootaw]

Yes, thank you. What are your thoughts regarding why the text is unrelated to the BoA?

[MormonMason]

Yes, thank you. What are your thoughts regarding why the text is unrelated to the BoA?

To which text are you referring? The text on/in the vignette itself? Well, if that is the case, the text is broken. However, one word remains that has something to do with sacrifice or being fit for offering. That fits the Book of Abraham perfectly and relates well thereto.

If you are referring to the text surrounding the vignette, having vignettes that do not match surrounding text is not unheard of in Egyptian literature. Other kinds of documents display similar situations, the circumstances and examples of which vary widely. My guess is that this was the purpose of the scribe. There is no way of proving that, however, with the current state of the papyri and the missing length of scroll that was attached at the end. Too much is missing.

It is my hope that one day the rest will be found but I am not holding my breath. What was the part of the remaining scroll that contained what became Facsimile 3 was in the inventory list of items that were in the Wood's Museum before it burned to the ground in the Great Chicago Fire. With that text missing, no side of the equation can make an airtight case for or against.

Even with our current reproduction of Facsimile 3, we can know that not all of the text concerning that vignette is present. We can know this because the current text is broken and anything that was on either side thereof is missing, along with two columns of Book of Breathing text that have to be reconstructed from other related papyri.

As an aside, I think I will mention that the Book of Breathing came in three main variants. The Book of Breathing Made by Isis is a composite document and was designed to be placed on the left near the heart. The First Book of Breathing was to be placed at the head and The Second Book of Breathing was to be placed at the feet of a mummy.

Curiously enough, the mummy that had our Book of Breathing also was buried with a Book of the Dead. We know this because there is a Book of the Dead that bears the same name and titles, as well as the same parentage. Unfortunately, that Book of the Dead was sold off to the Louvre and ended up in Geneva, if I recall correctly. I have been informed that it is being conserved as I write this and that it is not readily available to anyone. I would have had a look at it had that not been the case. In any case, the evidence of two differing documents belonging to Horos shows that the Horos mummy was buried with more than one text in his sarcophagus. How many others besides two, we cannot now know for sure with the current state of the documents.

Edited to include some information about the whereabouts of the Horos Book of the Dead I had forgotten.

Edited September 30, 2012 by MormonMason

[cdowis]

From Don Bradley presentation on the Kinderhook Plates @ Fair 2011 entittled “President Joseph Has Translated a Portion”: Solving the Mystery of the Kinderhook Plates"

1. Please give us the specific citation, with his references. It may only be an opinion with no basis in fact. See my discussion with Dan Vogel, the award winning historian, where he was unable/unwilling to respond to basic questions to support his conclusions.

I have found that some people are unable to distinguish between opinion and fact.

2. "translation" -- yes, you did say it was translated by JS. Please read your post.

Edited September 30, 2012 by cdowis

[CA Steve]

1. Please give us the specific citation, with his references. It may only be an opinion with no basis in fact. See my discussion with Dan Vogel, the award winning historian, where he was unable/unwilling to respond to basic questions to support his conclusions.

I have found that some people are unable to distinguish between opinion and fact.

2. "translation" -- yes, you did say it was translated by JS. Please read your post.

The article is only 9 pages long but I would be happy to provide page numbers for the two quotes I provided..

My quote in post #14 is from page 7 on Don's article toward the bottom.

My quote in post #20 is from page 8 in the middle.

Here is my exact quote regarding what I said Joseph Smith did in post #9

If he had figured it out why would he be trying to use the EAG to translate a portion of the Kinderhook plates?

I have underlined and bolded the section which shows I said he was trying to do something not that he actually did. I hope that is helpful in your quest to determine fact from opinion.

If you are unable to get a copy of Don's paper then you might also consider this quote from Fair wiki which also depends on Don's article.

Bradley noted that one of the most prominent characters on the Kinderhook Plates (a symbol shaped like a boat), when broken down into its individual elements matched a symbol found on page 4 (the second page of characters) of the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), often referred to as the "Egyptian Alphabet. The GAEL provides meanings for the individual symbols, and the meaning assigned to the particular symbol found on the plates supports the translation reported to have been provided by Joseph.

The conclusion is that Clayton's account appears to be accurate, that Joseph did attempt to translate "a portion" of them by non-revelatory means, and the translation provided matches a corresponding symbol and explanation in the GAEL.

http://en.fairmormon...es#ref_bradley1

Edited September 30, 2012 by CA Steve

[Thinking]

Yes, it was at the front of the roll containing the Books of Breathing and of Abraham. Your point? The entire rest of the roll and, therefore, the text of Abraham in the original, is gone. My point still stands.

There is nothing in Abraham 1:12 about the Book of Breathings.

[MormonMason]

There is nothing in Abraham 1:12 about the Book of Breathings.

And there should be...why? The Book of Breathing also does not refer to the first vignette and the first vignette does not refer either to the Book of Breathing or to the hieroglyphic text surrounding it.

Edited October 1, 2012 by MormonMason

[CA Steve]

MM,

In the restored version of Facsimile#1 Joseph Smith places Anubis on the far side of both the lion bier and Osiris legs. What reason do we have to believe that the location of Anubis by Joseph Smith is an interpretation or engraving error any more than how the original copyist drew it in 150 BC?

Edited October 1, 2012 by CA Steve

[MormonMason]

MM,

In the restored version of Facsimile#1 Joseph Smith places Anubis on the far side of both the lion bier and Osiris legs. What reason do we have to believe that the location of Anubis by Joseph Smith is an interpretation or engraving error any more than how the original copyist drew it in 150 BC?

Have you ever made a woodcut? Have you ever worked with lead in making one or anything the like? It is far easier (and more so at that early day with Headlock's skill set) to put the figure of the priest in the back of everything and cut part of the priest off than as the original vignette has it. Nothing more sinister than that but we tend to forget things like that in this day and age of graphic arts and digital photography.

The original is a fascinating piece of work, and placing the man on the bier in the position that he is, with both legs off of the bier, with the priest in between the man and the bier is unique and meant something to the person who composed it. It also fits remarkably well with the Book of Abraham as it looks more like a struggle of two opposites than any other lion couch representation I have ever seen in the literature.

As an aside, someone I know was so fed up by the differences between the original and the woodcut that he actually on his mission reworked the Facsimile with an eraser and a permanent marker to look more like the original, a photo of which he used to carry around with him. He did not do a half-bad job, actually.

Surprisingly, I would have expected a lot of that ink to soak through than actually did. It would be my hope that one day Facsimile 1 could be made to look more like the original. Of course, as soon as that happened the critics would cry, "Changes! Changes!"

Edited October 2, 2012 by MormonMason

[CA Steve]

Have you ever made a woodcut? Have you ever worked with lead in making one or anything the like? It is far easier (and more so at that early day with Headlock's skill set) to put the figure of the priest in the back of everything and cut part of the priest off than as the original vignette has it. Nothing more sinister than that but we tend to forget things like that in this day and age of graphic arts and digital photography.

The original is a fascinating piece of work, and placing the man on the bier in the position that he is, with both legs off of the bier, with the priest in between the man and the bier is unique and meant something to the person who composed it. It also fits remarkably well with the Book of Abraham as it looks more like a struggle of two opposites than any other lion couch representation I have ever seen in the literature.

As an aside, someone I know was so fed up by the differences between the original and the woodcut that he actually on his mission reworked the Facsimile with an eraser and a permanent marker to look more like the original, a photo of which he used to carry around with him. He did not do a half-bad job, actually.

Surprisingly, I would have expected a lot of that ink to soak through than actually did. It would be my hope that one day Facsimile 1 could be made to look more like the original. Of course, as soon as that happened the critics would cry, "Changes! Changes!"

Thanks MM.

While I have not worked with woodcuts (or lead plates - were the lead plates made from wood cuts?) I do a lot of single line sketching in my line of work. I do not see why the way it was recreated by Joseph Smith was any easier or more difficult to create than the way it is shown on the original. Given the complexity of the rest of the Facsimiles ( especially Facsimile#2) this area is one of the least congested and therefore the easiest to reproduce accurately. He would just have had to extend the lines for the Anibus's legs vertically to the underside of Osiris legs, fairly simple actually. I suspect that it was drawn that way because Joseph Smith wanted it that way or at least did not see it as important.

Hauglid's excellent book A Textual History of the Book of Abraham has what appear to be full size photos of the lead plate used in printing the Facsimilies on pages 274-276. You can also see them on the Joseph Smith Paper website here. http://josephsmithpa...-early-1842?p=1

As far as the positioning of Anubis being between the legs, or behind the bier, at the end of the bier, or even at the head of the bier, in all cases his location is explainable as being there to assist Osiris in the act of reanimation. Bell, who as you point out, believes that Osiris has both hands raised contra Ritner and others, provides his own reconstruction of the scene showing Anubis holding out an "ointment jar" in his outstretched hand. I would expect that had a knife been in the hand of the figure above the bier the elbow of the figure would have been bent significantly more and the knife pointed downward.

[MormonMason]

Thanks MM.

While I have not worked with woodcuts (or lead plates - were the lead plates made from wood cuts?) I do a lot of single line sketching in my line of work. I do not see why the way it was recreated by Joseph Smith was any easier or more difficult to create than the way it is shown on the original. Given the complexity of the rest of the Facsimiles ( especially Facsimile#2) this area is one of the least congested and therefore the easiest to reproduce accurately. He would just have had to extend the lines for the Anibus's legs vertically to the underside of Osiris legs, fairly simple actually. I suspect that it was drawn that way because Joseph Smith wanted it that way or at least did not see it as important.

Therein lies the problem with your not understanding concerning why things were done as they were. I once tried cutting and I once tried engraving a metal plate with writing just to see whether it was as difficult as Jacob claimed it was in the Book of Mormon. Doing it as the Facsimile now is is most certainly the most easy way to do it. And, engraving plates is as difficult as Jacob makes it out to be.

Hauglid's excellent book A Textual History of the Book of Abraham has what appear to be full size photos of the lead plate used in printing the Facsimilies on pages 274-276. You can also see them on the Joseph Smith Paper website here. http://josephsmithpa...-early-1842?p=1

I have this book. I do not, however, have it with me at the moment. I have, however, looked at the cuts in the plates used for printing.

As far as the positioning of Anubis being between the legs, or behind the bier, at the end of the bier, or even at the head of the bier, in all cases his location is explainable as being there to assist Osiris in the act of reanimation. Bell, who as you point out, believes that Osiris has both hands raised contra Ritner and others, provides his own reconstruction of the scene showing Anubis holding out an "ointment jar" in his outstretched hand. I would expect that had a knife been in the hand of the figure above the bier the elbow of the figure would have been bent significantly more and the knife pointed downward.

I know of no other representation that places Anubis or a priest between the man on the bier and the bier itself. I know of no resurrection scene where only the man's back is on the bier with his feet off and kicking. I know of no resurrection scene where an Anubis figure is where he appears in the first vignette of the Horos scroll. I am aware of Anubis being in that position for embalming and mummification and burial scenes but not between the man and the bier. He is always before or behind.

And, in every depiction of a god or other person dressed to look like one or otherwise, armed with a knife that I have seen or can recall in Egyptian literature, the knife generally, if not always is pointed upward rather than downward. If you have examples to the contrary I would surely be interested in looking them over. But, as I said, I am unaware of any that are otherwise so I would think it of interest to see some examples. I cannot, however, recall seeing any knives held by gods in funerary or other connected literature that point downward.

[Dan Vogel]

1. Please give us the specific citation, with his references. It may only be an opinion with no basis in fact. See my discussion with Dan Vogel, the award winning historian, where he was unable/unwilling to respond to basic questions to support his conclusions.

I have found that some people are unable to distinguish between opinion and fact.

2. "translation" -- yes, you did say it was translated by JS. Please read your post.

Only in your distorted opinion and inflated view of your arguments.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[MormonMason]

Ok, so I broke down and purchased the book that is the subject of the thread. I figured while I was out and about and many miles away from my home, I would purchase it so that when (it was not a matter of if but when) I would experience buyer's remorse it would be difficult to return it without having to travel all the way back other than mailing it and wasting postage. So, now I am stuck with it--more or less.

As I flipped through the text, my initial reaction was repeated. It is very much a text that rehashes anti-LDS claims and is mostly a repeat of everything that I already have in my files from those involved in the project. There are a number of errors of fact and there is heavy reliance upon the materials contained in Fawn Brodie's "fine work" on the subject of Joseph Smith and her episodes of mind-reading.

At any rate, as I was carefully reading the first few pages (all I had time for at the moment) I was struck with a glaring error in a footnote on the fourth page, one that reflects badly on the knowledgebase of two of Ritner's colleagues, as it does on Ritner--but only because he relies on Brodie rather than getting himself up to speed. He couldn't even avail himself of access to the newer, 1970 revised edition of Brodie's work? And, he couldn't avail himself of the consultation of the original rather than get it through Brodie?

I do not have any of my Egyptian Lexicons with me so cannot comment too much on the first third of the footnote (number 5). It looks OK on the surface but I also do not have access to a grammar of Late Egyptian for comparison. But, I will comment on the glaring problems of footnote 5 on page 4 of the work discussed that jumped out at me while reading. The remaining two-thirds of the footnote reads as follows:

... In the same "Appeal to the Brave Green Mountain Boys" (Brodie 1945, p. 292), Smith attempted an extensive passage in Chaldean (a dialect of Aramaic). His rendition and translation is described by my colleague Gene B. Gragg, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Languages at the Oriental Institute, as incompetant and based on sources misunderstood or misrepresented; personal communication, September 14, 2010. Rebecca Hasselbach, Asst. Professor of Comparative Semitics at the Oriental Institute, noted that the Chaldean "is Aramaic, but a pretty butchered version," perhaps "because he (or his source) transliterated the gutturals as vowels instead of consonants and some of the forms seem to be made up"; personal communication September 17, 2010.

(Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition [salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2011], 4 fn. 5)

Anything to add to a more negative view of Joseph Smith's 'abilities' as a translator, I suppose! But, there are serious problems with the opinions in the quote. I now discuss these briefly. I am also looking at a scanned copy of the original typeset text, the Aramaic text mentioned being on page 4 of the Appeal (http://archive.org/s...page/4/mode/2up).

First of all, Joseph Smith did not write the Appeal. It was ghostwritten. However, since Joseph Smith signed off on the ghost writing I suppose we can let that slide a little. It gets worse though.

Second, I recognized the Aramaic phrase right off the bat and knew exactly whence it came. These scholars of Semitic languages at the Oriental Institute did not recognize the text and its source? These professors Emeritus and otherwise could not recognize that it was a genuine Aramaic phrase in all its parts, so far as the consonants are concerned? Were they not aware that Chaldean in the days of Joseph Smith was nothing more than what people now call Biblical Aramaic???

Third, were they not aware that some linguists used a modified form of Sephardic transliteration of Hebrew and Aramaic words, or were they aware that this was the way they learned from Seixas in Kirtland? Perhaps we can forgive them these latter errors but the former? And Joseph Smith made up part of it? Is that their "final answer"?

Folks, the text that was cited in modified Sephardi transliteration is Aramaic (formerly known as Chaldean in the 19th Century), is genuine in most all its parts with the exception of a few mistransliterated vowels in even that system that do not affect the meaning, but none of it "made up", and the origin of the Aramaic text is none other than the Holy Bible, a text that often is read by those who are being trained to read Biblical Aramaic! And they have forgotten their training???

Well, maybe we can forgive their forgetfulness of the Biblical text that was in the grammars they learned from but what of the rest? No due diligence??? One can read the original Aramaic text at Jeremiah 10:11 in any Hebrew Bible in a number of places. The text of the translation, however, is almost word for word taken directly from the King James Bible.

But, I have not even gotten past the second page of the Introduction, and there is already a litany of errors of this serious a nature? "What has the rest of the book in store for readers?" one wonders. And worse, this reflects badly on the credentials of Ritner and colleagues at the Oriental Institute, in my view, to objectively discuss Joseph Smith and anything related to translation material claimed to come from him. I hope to have time in the near future to go through this book with a fine-toothed comb see if there are any more multiple-zingers like this one.

Alas! Time...

Edited October 3, 2012 by MormonMason