Robert Ritner's Decimation of Mormon Egyptology

[_Gadianton]

Reverend,

I, of course, defer to your expertise on this matter, as I do actually on most matters. My comments regarding Nibley might be a bit harsh here and stronger than typical. For one, the fact that FARMS would send him down the river for not being a right-wing fanatic like most of them are is unthinkable. If some of his work gets cited then I think that's great and I know he inspired many students. Heck, I even owe my own apostasy in part to Dr. Nibley, he set me on a path the bishop warned me not to follow.

I'm not familiar with all his publications, but a number of his essays published in secular outlets appear in the collective works. How influential was this work? If he's getting cited elsewhere, then I'm happy for it. But I doubt his Egyptology is on that list. My main point here is that the LDS household view of Nibley as a scholarly God is greatly exaggerated. From a raw talent perspective, there may be some truth here, but my own albeit limited foray into Bible scholarship and what I think is refered to as ancient studies left me with the impression that Nibley's influence was minimal. Now, there can only be so many genre-defining researchers and not being counted in those ranks isn't a sin and doesn't make one unworthy, but given his unique talents, he probably could have been.

If Kevin Graham dismisses Nibley based on evidence, then Nibley's supporters will need to do more than just cite the stories that circulate about how feared Nibley was by his secular colleagues.

[_Tobin]

Fascinating. Yet he completely fails to state his evidence.

You clearly didn't read what I posted. He gives several examples of unattributed "borrowing" by Rhodes.

It would help immensely if you (or Ritner) would actually cite what someone said in whole and demonstrate your "strong evidence". Would it really be that difficult to quote Rhodes (or others) in whole, highlight what and where they copied from Ritner exactly, and make your case? That would be strong evidence indeed. I'm really not impressed by what "might be borrowings" as Ritner puts it.

[Guest]

It would help immensely if you (or Ritner) would actually cite what someone said in whole and demonstrate your "strong evidence".

I did, and so did Ritner.

Would it really be that difficult to quote Rhodes (or others) in whole, highlight what and where they copied from Ritner exactly, and make your case? That would be strong evidence indeed. I'm really not impressed by what "might be borrowings" as Ritner puts it.

9 clear and specific examples, and you're not impressed. Again, I have to conclude you're a troll.

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.

In short, Rhodes shows no expertise in Demotic, and in fact never claims to. But mysteriously, he's able to transliterate and translate Demotic Egyptian exactly the same way Ritner did (and Ritner gives 9 examples above). There are only two options I can think of: Rhodes received it by revelation, or he used a prior source. Since the transliteration matches Ritner's, which Rhodes had access to, it doesn't take a genius to guess where it came from.

I'm really glad you do not occupy a position of authority in academia. Imagine what people could get away with.

ETA: As Ritner shows, Rhodes makes some pretty egregious mistakes in reading hieroglyphics, so it's highly unlikely that he has more expertise in Demotic, such that, miracle of miracles, he would come up with exactly the same translations and insert them crudely into Nibley's work. You really have to be ideologically driven not to see the plagiarism here.

[_Fence Sitter]

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but this is silly.

Not silly, standard fare for Tobin, start with one claim and keep defending an ever moving target.

He will not stick to an original assertion nor admit when it is wrong. In this thread he starts out here

I would submit that it might be a bit more reasonable approach to consider someone's arguments and work instead of simply dismissing it due to their religion, race, sex and so on..

Saying Ritner is not addressing the arguments only attacing “their religion, race , sex and so on”. What the last two items have to do with the discussion at this point is anyone’s guess, but it does provide some irony later on.

Then he moves his target here where he claims that Ritner needs to pursue some sort of formal complaint of plagiarism otherwise it can’t really be plagiarism. (great example of a non-sequitur)

If Ritner really is making that charge, then he should also bring those charges to the proper academic oversight and seek to have them disciplined. If not, then what he is claiming is unconscionable and he should be discredited as a result..

After that he accuses Ritner of not being fair or accurate and not demonstrating his point, which Bob is clearly showing Tobin that Ritner did.

He then tries to claim Ritner never mentions plagiarism or copying which again, in the OP, is clearly shown by both Bob and I. Oddly enough he continues to assert this point even though it has been clearly refuted several times.

Next target he brings up is “tit for tat in a bizarre attempt to defend mopologist accusations against Riner’s sexual orientation. This comment by Tobin is especially ironic in view of his previous claim above that sex should be left out of these discussions by Ritner.

And finally he reverts back to the plagiarism issue as if no one had mentioned it and pretends Ritner hasn’t made his case in the OP. Regardless of the amount of citations provided he continues to demand more citations.

Truly a moving target.

I would guess both Bob and I are close to being placed on the ignore list (once again for me) followed by a declaration that we have failed to provide anything substantive to the discussion.

"It's merely a flesh wound!!!"

[_Bob Loblaw]

Truly a moving target.

I would guess both Bob and I are close to being placed on the ignore list (once again for me) followed by a declaration that we have failed to provide anything substantive to the discussion.

"It's merely a flesh wound!!!"

Look, I don't have anything personal against Tobin (I don't know him/her at all). But I don't understand this consistent refusal to address evidence. I would say it's frustrating, but it's too weird for that.

[_Fence Sitter]

Look, I don't have anything personal against Tobin (I don't know him/her at all). But I don't understand this consistent refusal to address evidence. I would say it's frustrating, but it's too weird for that.

I don't have anything personal against him either, it's merely his "arguments" I am addressing. His biggest complaint seems to be the lack of detailed evidence, so I am providing that by quoting the source. Surely he can't fault me for that?

[_Bob Loblaw]

I don't have anything personal against him either, it's merely his "arguments" I am addressing. His biggest complaint seems to be the lack of detailed evidence, so I am providing that by quoting the source. Surely he can't fault me for that?

Ritner gives 9 examples of clear lifting in Rhodes's attempt to rehabilitate Nibley's 1975 translation, and Tobin complains that we haven't provided any evidence. How weird is that?

[_Fence Sitter]

Ritner gives 9 examples of clear lifting in Rhodes's attempt to rehabilitate Nibley's 1975 translation, and Tobin complains that we haven't provided any evidence. How weird is that?

Weird, it would be like continuing to assert thickness is relevant to the scroll length determined by the Hoffmann formula after being shown it is not.

Horse to water, I suppose ...

[Guest]

It would help immensely if you (or Ritner) would actually cite what someone said in whole and demonstrate your "strong evidence".

I did, and so did Ritner.

No you haven't, despite my repeated requests that you do so clearly and concisely. Simply asserting something that is clearly untrue is hogwash.

Would it really be that difficult to quote Rhodes (or others) in whole, highlight what and where they copied from Ritner exactly, and make your case? That would be strong evidence indeed. I'm really not impressed by what "might be borrowings" as Ritner puts it.

9 clear and specific examples, and you're not impressed. Again, I have to conclude you're a troll.

No they are not. Your examples don't even pass the laugh test. It is Ritner's opinion that Rhodes does not know Demotic because of errors he makes. Then based on nothing more than his word, he then leaps to the magical conclusion that when Rhodes gets something right - ah well, he was copying me (I mean "borrowing" because he's so sleazy he can't even bring himself to clearly and definitively make the charge of copying or plagiarism). Now, if this kind of tit-for-tat is your idea of how someone should do scholarly work (or retaliate against people), then you are right - I am very glad I don't work in your field or in any field associated with people like you.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Weird, it would be like continuing to assert thickness is relevant to the scroll length determined by the Hoffmann formula after being shown it is not.

Horse to water, I suppose ...

You're right. This is his MO. Once you understand the Hoffman formula, it's really not that difficult. I guess some people just really want to not understand it.