In 1975, Hugh Nibley attempted both a transliteration and a literal, interlinear translation of only the unrestored portions of Fragments XI and X (with the “patches”in Fragment IV). 6 Designed strictly for an audience of believers, Nibley’s volume was expressly composed to provide a Mormon rebuttal to the interpretive analysis of Egyptologists, including Baer, with whom he had studied briefly and informally. 7 These word for word, incomplete translations produced such results as “(avenger of) father his Horus (of) Edfu has enfolded body being about to deify spirit thine as do gods all,” and were recognized by Nibley as “nonsense.” 8 Moreover, his transliterations defy both conventional and internal systems, with inconsistency and conflation of alphabetic signs (iw vs. yw, sh vs. ßh, ™a vs. ™ vs. a™, h for ˙), punctuation, etc. 9 While intended to highlight his quibbles over the nature of translations (to defend Joseph Smith’s use of the term), Nibley’s interlinear method of literal translation would necessarily produce gibberish from any language. 10
Tacitly acknowledging this source of embarrassment, John Gee and Michael D. Rhodes have attempted to justify Nibley’s methods—while promptly dropping them—in their heavily reworked “re-edition” of the 1975 volume. 11 As noted by Gee,
“we need to explain the numerous changes we have made in this new edition
of Nibley’s 1975 Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri. First, we have returned the
Egyptian transliterations to the standard transliteration system… 12
Fifth, the greatest changes occur in the second chapter, where typesetting
considerations have led us to abandon Nibley’s original interlinear presentation.
Originally, Nibley presented the papyrus in interlinear translation in part because
of accusations that he could not read Egyptian. … The new presentation should
be both easier to follow and clearer than the old.” 13
The relevant second chapter of this 2005 edition is hardly a representation of Nibley’s individual work, and the volume is more appropriately cited throughout this chapter as the combined efforts of Gee, Rhodes and Nibley 2005. Even in the “clearer” reworking, the translation by Nibley—with or without the input of Gee and Rhodes—remains problematic:
“after clasp-ed (two)arms his upon breast his …” (1975, p. 20)
“after clasped his (two) arms upon his breast …” (2005, p. 35)
Nibley’s skill with Egyptian texts may be judged by the reader below. Although Gee in particular has not hesitated to criticize all those who have taken exception to his writings in support of the fundamentalist Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS, now within the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship), his otherwise updated 2005 edition consciously ignores my own editions of this Book of Breathing (while acknowledging the later effort of Rhodes on pp. xxi and 558). Nibley’s original contribution is included below as Nibley 1975, with the re-edition as Gee, Rhodes and Nibley 2005.
Between the appearance of my first edition and the re-edition of Nibley, Michael D. Rhodes published The Hor Book of Breathings. A Translation and Commentary (July 2002). The volume includes color plates with misplaced patches (identified by Baer) now scanned into position (but not without problems). 14 Though never acknowledging the prior appearance of my own study, the transliterations and translations bear striking resemblance to them. Evidence of incomplete reworking of Rhodes’ text shows obvious changes from readings by Nibley to readings by myself (incorporating arcane Demotic). 15 As my earlier Dialogue edition was widely distributed and advance copies were sent to FARMS by the editors of Dialogue in March 2002, 16 one can legitimately raise the question of plagiarism, but far more important is the general agreement of our versions, a factor significant in reaffirming the proper nature of the text. 17 One major distinction in our editions is that Rhodes fails to make use of the “Valuable Discovery” manuscript (perhaps for ideological reasons 18) so that his analysis lacks critical information. While a marked improvement over the work by Nibley, his edition contains numerous misreadings of hieroglyphic and hieratic text (noted below). 19 Multiple inconsistencies in the Rhodes edition suggest that it was hastily edited, probably with the intent of ensuring that the volume appeared in the same calendar year as my initial edition.
Following my prior editions of this text in Dialogue and Journal of Near Eastern Studies, the column numbers in this edition have been increased by one over Baer’s traditional numbering, with the final word on Fragment I now considered to constitute Column I. The placement of this initial word at the end of Fragment I is based on its consistent placement in three nineteenth-century handcopies (“Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar,” pp. F, V, and 11 of “Valuable Discovery”; see Figure 1 for the last example).
=====================
Here are some footnotes to chew on....
8 Nibley 1975, pp. 37 (translation) and 47: “Though as correct and literal as we can make it, the translation in the preceding chapter is not a translation. It is nonsense.”
9 Cf. ibid., pp. 20 (iw) and 21 (yw); pp. 19 (sh) and 26 (ßh); p. 20 (both ™a.wy and ™.wy); and p. 26 (Washington™b) vs. p. 27 (w™b). Cf. also the inconsistent use of dashes and dots: (snsn f) p. 23, (imi.k) p. 25, (t-wr-t) p. 26, (wnw.t) p. 27.
10 Cf. French “Qu’il me donne cette pomme rouge” (“Let him give me this red apple”) rendered literally as “That he to me give this apple red.”
11 John Gee and Michael D. Rhodes, eds., The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol. 16: Hugh Nibley, The
Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, second edition, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2005.
12 Ibid., p. xx.
13 Ibid. p. xxi. In the skipped section of the quotation, Gee included a testimonial that he watched Nibley read Egyptian.
14 See the issue of misalignment of patches in Col. IV/1, discussed below.
15 Since Rhodes made critical errors in the reading of simple hieroglyphs (see Col. I/2, 3 and 5), his expertise in Demotic is unbelievable (see the comments on Col. IV/9 nhs–k tw). Contrast the basic transcription in Rhodes 2002, p. 35, l. 3 (˙r) with his comments on pp. 11 and 27 (now suddenly Demotic 2). Note that in his paleographic comments, p. 6, the Demotic 2 is unmentioned. Contra Rhodes (following Nibley), an initial writing of ˙r was not reworked in this passage. Given these errors and inconsistencies, praise for Rhodes’ “discussion of the use of a Demotic sign instead of its hieratic equivalent”(!) is without merit in the partisan review by Muhlestein 2005, p. 475. This same uncredited borrowing appears in Gee, Rhodes and Nibley 2005, p. 35, n. 7. For further “borrowings” in Rhodes 2002, see the incompletely incorporated “n” in Col. II/1; the
incompletely incorporated reading of p(£y)–s (for Nibley’s gs) in Col. II/7 (read both gs and ps on p. 80!); the incomplete substitution of qd–k for t¡.t–k in Col. V/7; the incomplete revision of grg into sdr in the same line; and the hasty, but poorly executed, insertion of my reading ¡r s£ in the final vignette, noted below. These obvious “smoking gun” examples leave unanswered the question of how many other (better incorporated)
borrowings might exist. Note, however, that I have given him credit for his contribution in Col. III/3.
16 Personal communication by Neal Chandler, editor of Dialogue, 3/2/02: “We plan to send an advance copy of the article to John Gee this week.” Gee (and Rhodes) had approximately four months (early March to early July) to examine my 2002 edition prior to the appearance of Rhodes’ volume. The July publication date for the Rhodes
volume is stated in Morris 2004, p. 357, n. 7; the new book announcement reached me by email on August 15. My JNES article had been sent to press on June 28, 2002. For reasons given above and throughout this study, I strongly doubt the assertion of Morris 2004, p. 357, that our editions were entirely made “independently of each other.” Mr. Morris, it should be noted, performed editorial duties for Gee, Rhodes and Nibley 2005; see that volume, p. xxiii. Since my “2003a” article was in press before the appearance of Rhodes 2002, one must disregard the criticism of Muhlestein 2005, p. 473, regarding my failure to cite it. Notably, Muhlestein had no objections to Rhodes’ failure to cite my prior work.
17 Our works (mine available, his in press) were discussed publicly in 2002 at the fifty-third convention of the American Research Center in Egypt, where Rhodes perhaps slipped in describing the lion couch of Fragment I as an “altar,” eliciting either alarm or confusion among attendees (depending upon their knowledge of the Book of Abraham). The term “altar” is now absent from his 2002 publication (pp. 18–20).
18 See the Mormon discomfort with the materials (“the Kirtland Egyptian Papers”) as summarized in Morris 2004, pp. 364–66 and 374–75: “These difficulties associated with the Book of Abraham have been the catalyst for some Saints losing their faith.”
19 The retention of many of Nibley’s errors shows clearly that the work of Nibley, rather than that of Baer, was the immediate source from which Rhodes began his work.
20 This text on Fragment I was already recognized by Baer in his notebook and corresponds to the final two signs mentioned in Baer 1968, p. 129 (line 5). For possible complications regarding this renumbering, see discussion of the word ¡w in Column I, below.
21 The initial translation of P. Joseph Smith 1 by Baer specifically listed the Louvre (3284, 3291), British Museum (9995) and Berlin (3135) parallels that he consulted; see Baer 1968, p. 119, n. 38. For additional parallels used by Baer, see Ritner 2003a, p. 164, and 2002, pp. 98–99. The same parallels have been employed in my own editions.
In a partisan review for Latter-day Saints, John Gee has deliberately reversed the facts of Baer’s edition; see Gee 1996, pp. 46–59. In “quibbling” (Gee’s term) with the writing of T. Wilfong, Gee wrote: “more significantly we should note that, as is almost admitted by Wilfong, the papyrus Baer translated was not P. Joseph Smith XI–X but P. Louvre 3284; where P. Joseph Smith XI–X matched P. Louvre 3294 the translation of the latter was put in italics. This is not to impugn Baer’s work in the least; he was clear about what he was doing, but others, including Wilfong, are less clear about what Baer did.” Baer was in fact clear about what he did, and it was the exact opposite of what Gee has claimed: “Fortunately, the manuscripts of the Breathing Permit show relatively little variation, so that it is not too difficult to restore the missing passages; restorations are marked by italics in the translation” (Baer 1968, p. 119). Baer translated the Smith version, and where portions were lost (NOT matching), he made use of the Louvre and other parallels. Cf. also Baer’s remarks, 1968, p. 124: “The italics will be a reminder that none of what follows comes from the Joseph Smith Papyri.” For his citation of variants, see
1968, p. 122, nn. 60, 64 and 65; p. 123, nn. 75 and 76; etc.
22 See the questionable restoration made by Rhodes in Paragraph VII, below. Rhodes 2002, pp. 51–70, followed Nibley 1975, pp. 57–65, in appending a copy of that text alone to his work. Though he added a few notes on variants in this section, Rhodes does not seem to have employed them in his edition of P. Joseph Smith 1.
...
71 Ultimately read by Baer as k£ mw.t–f “Bull of His Mother” (1968, p. 116 and n. 21) but marked as uncertain in his own working notes. The correct reading was first published by Quaegebeur 1997, p. 74, and discussed by Coenen 1998a, pp. 1103–15. Herbin 2008, p. 203, has suggested sm£ rkyw.f(?) “who destroys his enemy.” The
published photos used by Baer were ambiguous, but improved digital photography now available establishes the writing of sm£ ≈rwy.w–f with s over the biliteral m£-sickle (rather than a “knife” as seemed visible in the Charles M. Larson 1992 photo = p. 33), oar, plural strokes, enemy determinative, and flesh-sign (for –f). Ritner 2003a, p. 168, n. 44, should be corrected regarding the initial sign. Rhodes 2002, p. 21, wrongly transcribed the oar as a windpipe (sm£). For writings of ≈rwy “enemy” with the oar, see Erman and Grapow 1957, vol. III, p. 325. Muhlestein 2005, p. 483, n. 27, has repeated and even expanded upon Rhodes’ error.
...
85 A divine name (Anubis?) must be lost here, since the following address shifts from Hôr to a deity on his behalf, expressed in the second person. Baer 1968, p. 117, n. 29, suggested Osiris. This passage rebuts Gee 1992, pp. 100 and 104–5: “Where, we may ask, in all of Papyrus Joseph Smith XI–X is there any prayer to any Egyptian God?” A further example occurs in the invocation (col. VIII/11) of Facsimile 3. Actually, since Hôr
is repeatedly and explicitly stated to be deified, a member of the company of the gods, and a form of Osiris, the entire Breathing Document is itself an extended “prayer to an Egyptian God.” Rhodes 2002, p. 23, also noted the change of person from Hôr to a deity in Col. I/5, since “you” are now asked to give “him” (Hôr) benefactions. The implications of this pronoun agreement were consciously ignored in the critical FARMS reviews of my 2003a study by Morris 2004, pp. 358 and 361, and by Muhlestein 2005, p. 484, n. 30. Contra Morris, p. 361, Rhodes did far more than offer “simply an ellipsis indicating missing text,” and my supposed infraction in failing “to inform the reader of Baer’s comment on the matter” would merely have suggested Osiris instead of Anubis, with the same implications for Gee’s statement. Had Morris or Muhlestein actually read Baer 1968, p. 117, n. 29, they should have seen that Baer recognized the change of person and indicated an address to “Osiris?” Muhlestein has misrepresented Baer’s comments and ignored the same change to an unnamed deity in Rhodes 2002, p. 23. The further assertion by Morris, p. 361, n. 13, that my disassociation (Ritner 2003a, p. 167) from Gee’s “apologetic writings” represents a “personal dispute” or a “private matter” is misdirected. This has nothing to do with a secret interpersonal history. Since Gee has publicly claimed that his Yale degree justifies his apologetic interpretations, I was constrained to deny that I (as his former advisor) had any involvement in these writings. See the sarcastic claim by Gee 1998, p. 176: “Since I have a Ph.D. in Egyptology, I am an expert. All anti-Mormons should therefore unquestioningly accept my opinion.” Gee’s apologetic assertions, I stress again, would not have been acceptable in his coursework. I gained no personal pleasure—and remain deeply saddened—by the need to disavow my former student.
87 Rhodes 2002, p. 21, wrongly transcribed the oar as a windpipe (sm£). For writings of ≈rwy “enemy” with the oar, see Erman and Grapow 1957, vol. III, p. 325. Muhlestein 2005, p. 483, n. 27, has repeated and expanded upon Rhodes’ error.
88 Rhodes 2002, pp. 21–22, misread the hieroglyphic text as w£b (presumably for w™b Erman and Grapow 1957, vol. I, p. 280). He has misread the word ™b throughout the text, conflating Gardiner Sign-List F 17 and
D 60 . The same mistake is repeated and defended by Muhlestein 2005, p. 483, who revised Rhodes’ copy to include a “leg, surmounted by a water pot pouring water over a horn.” Muhlestein’s supposed “leg” is the flowing water. Muhlestein does not discuss Rhodes’ copy of the related noun ™b “purity” (without the leg and misread as w™b) in the 2002 Glossary on p. 79.
89 For this restoration, see n. 75, above. The restoration in Rhodes 2002, p. 21, n. 34, follows Coenen 1999a, p. 258, but without mention of the author’s hesitation.
90 The hieratic-influenced signs for m£™.(t)-≈right-wing were rendered as an “s” and a seated woman by Rhodes 2002, p. 21, with the unlikely suggestion that the “s” is the Greek nominative ending. For the similarity of “s” and “m£™,” see Möller 1912, pp. 22 (no. 236) and 41 (no. 432) = Verhoeven 2001, pp. 146–47 and 180–81. Muhlestein 2005, p. 483, n. 29, has failed to recognize the signs and simply repeated the error of Rhodes.
91 Rhodes 2002, p. 21, wrongly read the looped cloth determinative ( ) of q®ys as the letter t ( ) which actually follows and was misread by Rhodes as w ( ); for the cloth determinative in this word, see Erman and Grapow 1957, vol. V, p. 63 and below, Col. I/5. The mistake was not noted by Muhlestein 2005.
92 Rhodes 2002, pp. 21–22, wrongly read ≈nty ( ) “at the head of” for ˙r ( ) “on.” Cf. Col. I/5 (also in ˙r ¡mnt.t “on the west”). The mistake was not noted by Muhlestein 2005.
93 The hand copy in Rhodes 2002, p. 21, bears little resemblance to
-----
(As to the length of the papyrus)
As a result of this uniformity, the original size of the papyrus is not in doubt. With textual restorations and the now lost Facsimile 3, the papyrus will have measured about 150–155 cm. 27 At most, the papyrus might have been expanded by the inclusion of a further, middle vignette, as found in Papyrus Tübingen 2016, 28 but on the basis of the known parallels there is no reasonable expectation of any further text. Gee has repeatedly insisted that the Breathing Permit was “followed by another text, the only portions of which have been preserved are the maddeningly elliptical opening words: ‘Beginning of the Book of …’.” 29 No such words “have been preserved,” and the statement derives from an early error in reading the text by Seyffarth and a guess, recast as a fact, by Gee. 30 Seyffarth was an early outcast from Egyptology, notable for being the last holdout against the decipherment of hieroglyphs by Champollion. In any case, his own statements do not support the existence of a second text on the Hôr papyrus. 31
and the footnotes to the above excerpt:
27 Baer 1968, p. 127, n. 113. See further Ritner 2003a, p. 166. Gee 2000a, pp. 10 and 12–13, has claimed that this papyrus will have measured “320 cm (about 10 feet),” but that is the average length of a blank papyrus roll as manufactured in the Ptolemaic era—not the length of the known Books of Breathing copied on sections cut from such rolls. Rhodes 2002, p. 4, was intentionally ambiguous, noting that “the entire Book of Breathings would have been about 156 cm,” and that “the Hor Book of Breathings would have taken up about half the length of one of these rolls.” Rhodes did not state that the Book of Breathings papyrus would have been about 156 cm, since that would deny the possibility of the Book of Abraham’s appearance elsewhere on the same papyrus. There is, however, no such possibility. For mathematical refutation that the scroll could have
contained a further text, see Cook and Smith 2010.
28 Brunner-Traut and Brunner 1981, pp. 296–97 and pls. 12–13, 150 (bottom), and 151 (left).
29 See Gee 2005, p. 96; and 2000a, p. 10.
30 See Gee 2000b, pp. 187, 189 and 212, n. 57, where Gee discusses an admittedly false reading of Seyffarth (˙£.t- ™ m ß™y as “Book of Hymns”) and suggests—with contorted logic—that in a different context Seyffarth, noting an “invocation,” “might have read the beginning lines of another text, one after the Book of Breathings.” Gee’s declarations rest exclusively on this flimsy evidence.
31 Seyffarth 1860; most of the article concerns his quarrels with Champollion and others, and it well reflects his “outsider status” (as acknowledged by Gee 2000b, pp. 209–10, n. 45). The most relevant pages for Gee’s statement are on p. 8 of the introductory hand copies (= plate XIX/8 of the 16 pages preceding the title page,
indicated as plate XIX only in the article), and pp. 530 and 535–36. Seyffarth did translate the phrase ˙£.t-™ m ß™y.t n snsn with “The book of praises laudatory for singing the glories of him” on plate XIX/8 § VI. nos. 1–7, and as “Book of Hymns for singing” on pp. 530 and 535–36. Aside from these specific references to the known
beginning of the Hôr Book of Breathing, no other ˙£.t-™ m ß™y.t is found. Seyffarth misunderstood the word “beginning” as “the book” (supposedly equalling Coptic ¸Íͺ™ ÷™), and contra the implication of Gee, the term ß™y.t (literally, “letter”) does not typically designate “books” other than the “Books of Breathing.” The term “invocation” attributed to Seyffarth appears in the St. Louis Museum catalogue of 1855 and 1859:
“according to Prof. Seyffarth, the papyrus roll is not a record, but an invocation to the Deity Osirus, in which
===================================
I mean this just goes on and on and on. Ritner's work is widely known, respected and read by Egyptologists everywhere. Try finding a negative review of it outside of Provo. This cannot be good news for the credibility of Mormonism's three Eygptologists.