Robert F Smith wrote:I was thinking primarily of your claim that, despite "some lucky guesses" by Joseph, he got "the bulk of it wrong." I thought that in your sustained and detailed look at the claims made (not suggesting original Egyptological research by you), you might have found some examples which would support the claims you have made. In other words, for what substantive reasons did you reach your conclusion that he got "the bulk of it wrong"? I know of no research which supports that conclusion.
CaliforniaKid wrote:Try Robert K. Ritner's "Complete Edition" of the papyri. The section on Facsimile 2 begins on page 215. Among other thing, Ritner notes that the Facsimile is incorrectly restored, that the "outlandish" names in the explanation are not Egyptian, that Smith misidentified most of the figures, and that the apologetic defenses of Smith's explanation are largely fallacious. I can see how one might argue that some of Smith's explanations were close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, but I'm honestly bewildered by your denial that he got the bulk of it wrong. Take a step back from the apologetic literature for a moment and look at the explanation through an outsider's eyes, Robert. I think perhaps you've been so immersed in the parallels for so long that you've lost sight of the extent and gravity of the un-parallels.
The problem is, Chris, that Ritner (who is a very angry anti-Mormon) did not deign to take a fair and impartial look at the papyri. His work comes under the rubric of John A. Wilson's accusation of "indignant snorts." Indeed, Ritner teamed up with others of like mind to do a "job" on the Book of Abraham. Had they been sincere and sure of their position, they would not have had to take that basically vicious anti-Mormon approach in which everything is given an automatic anti-Mormon slant, and in which anything positive is carefully overlooked.
This very unscholarly mode was used by Ritner also in a small book by him and a colleague in which they sought to show that Semitic spells appeared in some Pyramid Texts (even though Ritner cannot read any Semitic languages), thus wasting everyone's time and money who thought the book might have been serious and scholarly.
Apart from all that discreditable nonsense, you had told me earlier that you once carefully surveyed all the literature on this issue. I had merely wondered whether in that survey you had been able to compare substantive issues discussed by various Egyptologists and had reached some actual conclusions. I am always far more interested in discussing substantive points, rather than vague generalities, or endlesssly talking about talking about something.
By all means, let us address the parallels and unparallels and base our discussion on actual Egyptology -- something Ritner does not do.
I guess I shouldn't have expected anything of substance from a Mormon critic.
