Dr Robert K Ritner, PhD, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago's famed Oriental Institute, has issued a scholarly (and devastating) response to the essay about the Book of Abraham in the gospel topics section of their website.

Here is the link: http://signaturebooks.com/2014/08/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/

If you want to read it in .pdf formation, go here: https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/Translation%20and%20Historicity%20of%20the%20Book%20of%20Abraham_Revised.pdf

Professor Ritner is a formidable expert. Anything he writes on this, or other topics, is well worth reading.

Here's a choice quote from Professor Ritner's essay.

'Far too often, the LDS approach has been to find individual minor identifications or remote possibilities that cannot in sum either explain or justify the Book of Abraham. The new LDS citations of sources that are of minor relevance, misleading or false does not advance the cause of the church and its disputed scripture.'

Pretty much sums up the tactics of the Mopologists, doesn't it?

Wow!!!

I found this interesting that is not discussed to my knowledge:

He claims to have Abraham linked with Chaldea... This place didn't exist for another 1000 years. JS speaks Chaldean hmm. This is considered a biblical anachronism of the book of Genesis:

"Ur is another case in point. The writers of Genesis refer to it as Ur of the Chaldees, but scholars agree that the scriptures are confusing, because the Chaldees did not appear in Mesopotamia until early in the first millennium b.c. Finkelstein suggests this is further confirmation that the Genesis stories emerged at that time, as the people of Judah sought to build a national identity in a hostile world."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/features/world/asia/israel/abraham-text


And one last thing... Is there any evidence that Abraham was in Egypt? No.

"Absolutely blank," was his immediate reply when I asked what the Egyptian historical sources say about Abraham. "As far as the Egyptians are concerned," he said, "it's as if Abraham never set foot in the delta."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/features/world/asia/israel/abraham-text

Wow!! That is good!!

It's the smackiest of smackdowns. I do hope that the Mopologists won't try to respond to Dr Ritner. Here's his CV:

http://nelc.uchicago.edu/faculty/ritner

It's extremely impressive, no?

I Agree - fantastic smackdown! Loved it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2014 07:37PM by braindead.

This is exactly what needs to be done, calling them on their BS.

Thanks for the post. A favorite quote:

** QUOTE **
Thus the position paper concludes with a concession by noting (unnamed) modern scholarly opposition to the Book of Abraham, followed by a defense against any such scholarly debate: “The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity.” Rather, the truth of the book is sought in ways that cannot be verified externally, relying exclusively upon traditional faith: “a careful study of its teachings, sincere prayer, and the confirmation of the Spirit.”

...

If scholarly dispute over translation and historicity is ultimately irrelevant, why bother to devote extended paragraphs to rebuttals of unmentioned objections on “Translation and the Book of Abraham,” “The Papyri,” and “The Book of Abraham and the Ancient World”?
** QUOTE **

I had wondered the same thing when reading TSCC's essay. They would have saved themselves from looking really dumb by just saying that the papyri doesn't match the BoA and members should just have faith in the resulting text as a religious belief. That's it... the shortest essay in the world and scholars would leave them alone since it would be left to a matter of faith. But instead they open the essay by slamming the door on further discussion and then proceed to ... you guessed it ... discuss it further.

I took a class on ancient Egyptian language from him at the UofC and absolutely loved it, he is completely brilliant. It wasn't related to my major at all, it's just something I've always been interested in. I was not quite TBM at the time, but the brainwashing was still intact and I hadn't even begun to research anything about the church. Imagine my surprise when a couple of years later I see his name being trashed on FAIR's website! LOL it helped my shelf crash that much faster. I so wish I could have had the opportunity to ask him a little bit about his thoughts on the BoA in person.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2014 01:21AM by sha'dynasty.

I would love to talk with Professor Ritner about the BoA. He's written a book about it. I'm not surprised that (un)FAIR would go after him. In one of their articles, they accuse him of ad hominem attacks for quoting Martha Nibley Beck in his book on the Book of Abraham. He tends to be blunt regarding the Book of Abraham. However, this is not an area which is really open for debate. The papyri absolutely do not match the Book of Abraham translation. It's not that Joseph Smith got a few things wrong. It's that it is catastrophically wrong. There is absolutely no way whatsoever that Joseph Smith's alleged translation will ever match what the text actually says.

I still cannot believe that we are still going through this. The brethren should have dealt with it in the 1960s, but they didn't.

sha'dynasty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I took a class on ancient Egyptian language from
> him at the UofC and absolutely loved it, he is
> completely brilliant. It wasn't related to my
> major at all, it's just something I've always been
> interested in.

sha'dynasty, which textbook did you use?

And now it's obvious why no Apostle has dared put their name to this or other essays. When the time is right, it's going to be far easier to throw Muhlestein under the bus than Monson, Oaks, Holland and the rest.

Well worth reading the entire essay. Here is my favorite paragraph...

"The problems are by no means limited to the Facsimiles, since the text itself includes anachronistic and impossible expressions (including a “Potiphar’s Hill” located in Ur of the Chaldees, Abraham 1:10) and situations (supposed Egyptian rites of human sacrifice in Ur conducted by a priest of Pharaoh “after the manner of the Egyptians,” Abraham 1: 11-12). Wherever one locates Ur of the Chaldees, human sacrifice dictated there by “priests of Pharaoh” is unbelievable to credible scholars of the Ancient Near East.4 Nor was there any “Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham” (Abraham 1:25). As previously noted, “Pharaoh” is a title, not a name. Neither is “Egyptus” (“Egypt”) an ancient Egyptian personal name, but the name for the primary temple in Memphis that became generalized outside of Egypt as a designation for the country. Accurate translation or revelation would not produce such basic errors."

"Neither is 'Egyptus' (Egypt') an ancient Egyptian personal name, but the name for the primary temple in Memphis that became generalized outside of Egypt as a designation for the country."

Not only that, but as other scholars have pointed out, the word "Egypt" was given to that land by the conquering Greeks centuries after the time of the mythical Noachian flood. So it would have been impossible for a woman of that era to have carried a name which didn't yet exist. It's like somebody in the 1800's naming their child Darth Vader.

politicaljunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well worth reading the entire essay. Here is my
> favorite paragraph...
>
> "The problems are by no means limited to the Facsimiles, since the text itself includes
> anachronistic and impossible expressions (including a “Potiphar’s Hill” located in Ur
> of the Chaldees, Abraham 1:10) and situations (supposed Egyptian rites of human sacrifice in Ur conducted by a priest of Pharaoh “after the manner of the Egyptians,” Abraham 1: 11-12).
> Wherever one locates Ur of the Chaldees, human sacrifice dictated there by “priests of
> Pharaoh” is unbelievable to credible scholars of the Ancient Near East.4 Nor was there any “Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham” (Abraham 1:25). As previously noted, “Pharaoh” is a title, not a name. Neither is “Egyptus” (“Egypt”) an ancient Egyptian personal name, but the name for the primary temple in Memphis that became generalized outside of Egypt as a designation for the country.

I pointed out these problems several years ago in my article on Mormon linguistic problems ( http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#BOA ), as well as the Greek origin of the name Egyptus, as mentioned by Randyj.

I also included these topics in my talk at the Exmormon Foundation conference in 2009, based on my earlier article. (audio: http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/audio2009_low.html - video: http://youtu.be/O_LBzEsTlbk )

I found these linguistic anachronisms by my own careful reading of the text of the BoA and by researching the words in standard reference works. After I had completed my research I discovered that Stephen E. Thompson had already covered the same ground in his article "Egyptology and the Book of Abraham" in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 28:1:143, Spring 1995. I was gratified to see that my conclusions were confirmed by Thompson, who is a professional Egyptologist. And now by Ritner.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2014 12:36PM by RPackham.

Agreed. Even when the apologists revert to the old 'it doesn't matter how we got it, the text is true and inspiring' line, just quote Ab 1:25 and watch them squirm.

Wow! Great article. Very comprehensive. The Book of Abraham was the first issue in my disaffection with TSCC. I've said it before and I'll say it again...the only problem the LDS Church has is the truth.

And that, BYU, is an example of a real academic and educator.

Good article indeed.

I think that the LDS apologists who are writing these "essays" know full well that they are devoid of any scholarly content. The essays are fundamentally dishonest. They aren't designed to convince scholars or reflective, skeptical people. They are designed for the sheep who want to cling to their beliefs.

Ritner was on the doctorial committee of John Gee, one of FAIR's tame apologists and an Egyptologist. Ritner asked to be removed from Gee's committee, apparently because he had problems with Gee's scholarship or conclusions. This is widely known among apologist circles. So their defensiveness over this is going to be extreme.

Link to an earlier discussion on RfM:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,291287,291640



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2014 12:35PM by Lorraine aka síóg.

A great find.

Thanks for this.

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A great find.
>
> Thanks for this.

You're welcome Tom. Glad it helps.

Lorraine

Why bother with the (LDS) essay on the BoA?

They hope to convince internet readers who might dare to think a bit deeper, and who have done a bit more research into the BoA problems, to stop doing that, and to revert back to their blind faith, and to continue paying tithing.

I.e., damage control.

I have often wanted to say this to the FARMS-TYPE folks:

"Hey look, you're talking to me. What do I know? I'm an ordinary person. You can swamp me easily with all sorts of important-sounding works and obscure references. The same is true of just about every member of the Mormon Church. How would we know if you are just bluffing big time?"

"So, pick on someone your own size! Take all your certainty and positive evidence where it really counts. Argue with non-Mormon scholars for once. Go to Oxford, or Columbia, or Harvard, or Princeton, and present yourself and your ideas to them. If you are so certain of yourself, you should want to prove your case where it would have the greatest impact on the world. Right? So, why bother with ordinary me? "

Hello ... hello ... anyone there?