Page 1 of 3
Ritner publishes complete translation of the papyri
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:39 pm
by _LDS truthseeker
The relationship between the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri continues to receive scholarly attention from the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. For a century now, professors and LDS students from this leading institute of Egyptian studies have analyzed and debated the papyri and its relationship to Joseph Smith's translation. The translation was called "The Book of Abraham" and incorporated into the Pearl of Great Price which became the fourth foundational scripture of the LDS church.
Considered one of the country's foremost Egyptian scholars, Dr. Robert Ritner is the latest University of Chicago Egyptologist to turn his attention to the papyri. His book, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition, includes the first ever complete translation of the papyri.
Link:
http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2 ... smith.html
Re: Ritner publishes complete translation of the papyri
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:54 pm
by _SteelHead
From the link above:
Some LDS scholars have suggested the source for the Book of Abraham may be on papyri that was lost or destroyed. How plausible is this proposal?
(Ritner) For the reasons given above, this idea is not possible. The various alternative theories for a "missing Book of Abraham text" are discussed in detail in my book, and all are shown to be false. Parallel texts, standard papyrus document size (not whole rolls manufactured for commerce), measurements of rolling, a supposed (but false) reference to a lost text by the early scholar Seyffarth, and internal Book of Abraham remarks on the Facsimiles all indicate that the "Breathing Permit of Hor" (P Joseph Smith I) is the source of the fictional account of Abraham. The fictional nature of the tale is blatant not only from the Egyptian evidence, but also from Mesopotamian evidence, incorporated within this study for the first time.
Re: Ritner publishes complete translation of the papyri
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:20 pm
by _r_t
The MAD-house is very silent on this publication...
Re: Ritner publishes complete translation of the papyri
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:36 pm
by _Fence Sitter
This is an excellent book with great color glossy photographs of all the extant papyri along with several photos of handmade copies of the papyri that J.S. Jr and Co made in Kirtland. There is hand drawn copy, made at the time, of Facsimile #2 (the Hypocephalus of Sheshonq) in the condition which Joseph Smith saw it.
After reading the book I am sure that Ritner and Gee won't be having dinner together.
Re: Ritner publishes complete translation of the papyri
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:44 am
by _bcspace
Apologists can argue that the source text of Book of Abraham is lost, but they cannot deny the "translations" and "explanations" offered by Smith on the Facsimiles.
In other words, rather than the Book of Abraham being proven false, we're back to square one. Not enough information.
Re: Ritner publishes complete translation of the papyri
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:13 am
by _Morley
bcspace wrote:Apologists can argue that the source text of Book of Abraham is lost, but they cannot deny the "translations" and "explanations" offered by Smith on the Facsimiles.
In other words, rather than the Book of Abraham being proven false, we're back to square one. Not enough information.
You use that quote out of context. Let's look at your quote with the sentences preceding and following it, BC. An entirely different narrative emerges.
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the apologetic writings is the degree to which those translations support and often parallel Egyptological ones, demonstrating that the Joseph Smith interpretations are indefensible. Apologists can argue that the source text of Book of Abraham is lost, but they cannot deny the "translations" and "explanations" offered by Smith on the Facsimiles. Instead, they ignore them while translating the hieroglyphs as properly as possible, acknowledging Smith's published translations to be wrong.
Re: Ritner publishes complete translation of the papyri
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:46 am
by _moksha
bcspace wrote:In other words, rather than the Book of Abraham being proven false, we're back to square one. Not enough information.
Could we then take the position that we do not know the answer at this time?
Re: Ritner publishes complete translation of the papyri
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:55 am
by _Morley
moksha wrote:Could we then take the position that we do not know the answer at this time?
That's not the position that Ritner takes.
Some LDS scholars have suggested the source for the Book of Abraham may be on papyri that was lost or destroyed. How plausible is this proposal?
(Ritner) For the reasons given above, this idea is not possible. The various alternative theories for a "missing Book of Abraham text" are discussed in detail in my book, and all are shown to be false. Parallel texts, standard papyrus document size (not whole rolls manufactured for commerce), measurements of rolling, a supposed (but false) reference to a lost text by the early scholar Seyffarth, and internal Book of Abraham remarks on the Facsimiles all indicate that the "Breathing Permit of Hor" (P Joseph Smith I) is the source of the fictional account of Abraham. The fictional nature of the tale is blatant not only from the Egyptian evidence, but also from Mesopotamian evidence, incorporated within this study for the first time.
Re: Ritner publishes complete translation of the papyri
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:54 am
by _moksha
Morley wrote:moksha wrote:Could we then take the position that we do not know the answer at this time?
That's not the position that Ritner takes.
No, but it does add some degree of symmetry with our stance on the Priesthood ban.
Re: Ritner publishes complete translation of the papyri
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:22 am
by _Morley
moksha wrote:Could we then take the position that we do not know the answer at this time?
Morley wrote:That's not the position that Ritner takes.
moksha wrote:No, but it does add some degree of symmetry with our stance on the Priesthood ban.
You're too funny. (And I was too slow-witted the first time around.)