John Tvedtnes and Stephen Ricks wrote an excellent article a number of years ago that was published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (later republished in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon [1999]):
A few years ago on the old Alt.Religion.Mormon forum, I saved a response Tvedtnes wrote in response to a poster by the name of “Keryx” that was posted to the group by Kerry Shirts (back in the day when Shirts was a Latter-day Saint). I am reproducing it here as it is rather informative. The only changes are to the format to make it more readable and replacing the URL to the article (the one cited by Tvedtnes was that to the old Farmsearch Website).
RESPONSE TO *KERYX* FROM JOHN A. TVEDTNES:
Yesterday, January 29, 1997, two different individuals forwarded to me a critique of the article Stephen Ricks and I wrote (*Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters,* Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 [1996]:156-163), written by one Keryx on the alt.religion.mormon newsgroup. I don't subscribe to any newsgroups and, being a relative novice to things relating to the web/internet, don't know how to respond except to return this commentary to the two individuals who sent me E-mail and hope that one of them will post it. Please note that, throughout, whenever I refer to the article, I shall note the JBMS page number.
Let's start with the question of scholarship. Keryx wrote, *the presentation by Tvetdnes [sic]-[Ricks] is a travesty, an insult to sound scholarship.* Near the end of his communication, he lists the kinds of things that *a good scholar* would do and, noting that we did not do so, dogmatically declares, *Tvetdnes [sic] and [Ricks] are therefore not what I would consider good scholars.* He further claims that we *engage is [sic] a brand of scholarship that most of us would find suspect at best, occasionally dishonest at worst.* Who are these *most of us* anyway? Stephen and I have both established a scholarly reputation outside the LDS community. In addition to our association with Brigham Young University, I have taught at the University of Utah and lectured at the University of Haifa, while he taught at UC Berkeley for a year. Both of us have spoken at dozens of non-LDS symposia in the USA and abroad. Both of us have had work published by the Pontifical Biblical Institute. My works have also been published by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the University of Utah and in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Stephen's works have been published by such non-LDS publishers as Deutscher Taschenbuch in Germany, the American Institute for Islamic Studies in Denver, Edwin Mellen Press, Scholars Press, UC Berkeley, the International Congress for Asian and North African Studies, Doubleday (including the Anchor Bible Dictionary), Macmillan, University Press of America, Baker Books, and E. J. Brill. Brill published Stephen's Lexicon of Inscriptional Qatabanian, which is acknowledged as the dictionary for Epigraphic South Arabic studies. I realize that, in giving this information, I run the risk of being accused of bragging. But when it comes to anti-Mormon writers, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we remain silent about our credentials (only a portion of which I have described above), we are not scholars, and if we give our credentials, we are braggards.
By contrast, what has Keryx to offer? I understand that he claims to have a PhD, but in what? Where has he published? Do competent scholars acknowledge his work? Why does he write *sight* when the word he meant was *cite*? Why does he almost always spell my name incorrectly and list my co-author as *Sorenson* instead of *Ricks*? Why does he sometimes sound more like a character out of Wayne's World (*these FARMS clowns,* *John Gee, another FARMS dude*) than a scholar? Why does he think that the prominent male Egyptologist, Ariel Shisha-Halevi, is a woman? And why does he continually misrepresent (and sometimes outright lie about) what we wrote? Is this good scholarship? Read on and we shall see.
Keryx writes, *Tvedtnes [correctly spelled this time] and [Ricks] are clearly suggesting that reformed Egyptian might be some type of hybrid Hebrew-Egyptian script.* Actually, we noted that, properly speaking, *both hieratic and demotic . . . can properly be termed ¡reformed Egyptian,* since they are cursive forms of Egyptian hieroglyphic, but noted that *it seems likely that the Nephites further reformed the characters* (p. 158). Rather than *clearly suggesting* anything, we offered more than one possibility.
Keryx asks, *So do we really get Egyptian and Hebrew characters being used in combination to produce texts that are to be read in Hebrew? No, not really.* Not quite true, but, more to the point, I don't recall that we actually said that such were known. We did give one example of a text (the one from Arad) that comprised both Hebrew and Egyptian characters but which could *be read entirely as Egyptian* (p. 161). Most of the examples we gave were not of combination script texts, but of Semitic texts written entirely in Egyptian characters.
Keryx seems to not like our reference to *hieratic numbers being used in what otherwise are ordinary Hebrew texts.* We didn't make a big issue of it, so I fail to understand why he did. We merely noted in passing that the Israelites of the ninth through the sixth centuries BC *adopted the Egyptian hieratic numerals and mingled them with Hebrew text* (p. 159). If nothing else, it shows a pattern of adopting Egyptian symbols for use in Hebrew writing, though it is a minor point only.
Keryx goes to great length to give the text of one of the Hebrew ostraca from Arad, adding, *so we have the hieratic sign for 3, and the hieratic symbol for an ephah.* He makes it appear that this was one of our big points. Actually, we didn't even mention these Egyptian symbols in the Arad ostraca. We merely wrote that *most of the [Arad] documents were written in Hebrew and dated to 598-587 B.C.* (p. 161). At this point, we footnoted Aharoni's article--not for purposes of reference to Egyptian symbols on the ostraca, but only to support the dating of the Hebrew documents. By going to the footnoted Aharoni article and making light of the fact that one of the ostraca has only two hieratic symbols, Keryx is setting up a straw man. We didn't even discuss the topic. He builds on his straw man by devoting more space to *other Arad texts that use hieratic characters,* to which we also did not refer. Keryx doesn't like the fact that we didn’t give give the text of the various documents or refer to the various theories advanced by the scholars who first wrote about them. Our purpose was not to do a translation and commentary, however, only to discuss the writing system. The whole purpose in providing footnotes is to allow readers who want to look at the content of the texts (or even photos or line drawings, in some cases) to do so. But Keryx misuses them every time he refers to them, trying to move away from the subject at hand, which is the writing system.
Regarding the combination script from Arad, Keryx notes, *nor were we told that at best Arad text 34 is a list of provisions drawn up by an Egyptian scribe.* We were not concerned with authorship or content, since neither have a direct bearing on the simple fact that we have, here, a combination script, using both Hebrew and Egyptian characters that reads as an integrated whole in Egyptian. In my 1971 article, *Linguistic Implications of the Tel Arad Ostraca**(Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology No.*127), in which I first drew a parallel between the Book of Mormon writing system and that found in the combination script from Arad, I provided a translation of the text, showing it to be an inventory or shipping order or something of that nature. I referred to that article in the more recent one and didn't feel the necessity to repeat everything (referring to one's previous work without repeating all its points is common to scholars--a fact Keryx seems not to realize). In the 1971 article, I noted my opinion *that the text was intended principally for persons whose native tongue was Egyptian,* and gave the reasons for this belief. This would certainly allow for it being written, as Keryx notes, during *the brief period of Egyptian domination from 609-605 B.C.E.* Keryx should have read my earlier article before he wrote complained that about *Tvetdnes [sic]-[Ricks] . . . not telling us that hieratic signs
are used almost exclusively for numbers and units of measure. They do not give us complete and accurate descriptions of these texts.*
are used almost exclusively for numbers and units of measure. They do not give us complete and accurate descriptions of these texts.*
Keryx complains that *Tvetdnes[sic]-[Ricks] failed to discuss the social-political situation in which we are asked to believe that a 7th century Israelite learned demotic and used it to record his family history and Hebrew scriptures on plates of brass.* *A good scholar,* he writes, *would at begin [sic] consider the historical and cultural factors that motivated such a text.* Ours was a linguistic article. All we intended was to show that there were texts that seemed to fit the description found in 1 Nephi 1:2, some of which dated from approximately Lehi's time. While it is certainly valid to look at the social, cultural, and political environment to try to explain how these texts came to be,
all we were trying to demonstrate is that the argument that such writing systems did not exist is invalid, for they did, indeed, exist. Moreover, Keryx seems to want it both ways, insisting that there was no Egyptian influence in Judah during Lehi's time, while arguing that the reason for Egyptian influence at Arad was *the brief period of Egyptian domination from 609-605 B.C.E.* How, then, does he explain the Egyptian hieratic text of ca. 700 B.C. also found at Arad? I don¢t recall seeing it discussed in his critique, despite the fact that it was mentioned in our article (p. 161).
all we were trying to demonstrate is that the argument that such writing systems did not exist is invalid, for they did, indeed, exist. Moreover, Keryx seems to want it both ways, insisting that there was no Egyptian influence in Judah during Lehi's time, while arguing that the reason for Egyptian influence at Arad was *the brief period of Egyptian domination from 609-605 B.C.E.* How, then, does he explain the Egyptian hieratic text of ca. 700 B.C. also found at Arad? I don¢t recall seeing it discussed in his critique, despite the fact that it was mentioned in our article (p. 161).
Keryx gives the appearance of trying to help when he suggests, regarding the Arabic text written in Hebrew characters by Maimonides in the 12th century A.D., *Could he have used Arabic script because he lived in a land controlled by Arabic using Moors [sic]?* Why he makes a point of something we mentioned only at the end of a footnote (No. 8) is beyond me. Had we wanted to use Maimonides as primary evidence for our case, we would have mentioned his Guide for the Perplexed in the body of the text, rather than in a footnote. Besides, both Stephen and I are well aware of why he used Arabic. But why did he not write it in Arabic script, which he surely must have known or could have readily learned?
Regarding the Kadesh-barnea documents (which he terms *perhaps the best evidence Tvetdnes[sic]-[Ricks] have of Hebrew scribes using Hebrew-Egyptian writing), Keryx wrote, *It is difficult to interpret these texts as anything other than reference lists or practice lists for Hebrew scribes to learn and use Egyptian numbers.* Presumably, this is evidence against the thesis we present in the article. And yet, on closer examination, one finds that we wrote of one of the documents, *Because of the order of the numerals in each column, it may be a scribal practice in writing numbers.* Of another, we wrote, *Because the numerals are in order, Rudolph Cohen, the archaeologist who discovered the texts, concluded that ¡this writing is a scribal exercise. This view is supported by the discovery, at the same site, of a small ostracon with several Hebrew letters, in alphabetic order, evidently a practice text* (p. 163).
Keryx complains that *at no point do Tvedtnes[!]-[Ricks] remind us that Kadesh-barnea was a frontier outpost. At no point do they consider the possibility that it was a point of contact between Egyptian and Israelite traders, and whatever Egyptian texts are present at the product of Egyptian scribes.* While we did not use the term *frontier outpost,* we did say that it was *in the Sinai Peninsula,* which I assume anyone with a brain knows is not in downtown Tel-Aviv. Moreover, nowhere did we indicate whether the Kadesh-barnea texts were written by Israelite scribes. We concluded only that Hebrew and Egyptian writing systems were commingled in the texts. Keryx is trying to make it appear that we were misleading our readers by making unwarranted assumptions. Rather, it is he who is making assumptions, saying that the texts had to have been written by Egyptian scribes, not Israelites. We were more open on the
issue, drawing no conclusions about who did the writing.
issue, drawing no conclusions about who did the writing.
Nor did we imply, as Keryx charges, that *Hebrew scribes [were] using hieratic signs to stand for Hebrew words or roots on a regular basis.* Rather, we concluded that, because there exist texts containing both Hebrew and Egyptian characters and that there are now known several examples of Semitic texts written in Egyptian script, *the use of Egyptian script by Lehi's descendants now becomes not only plausible,
but perfectly reasonable* (p. 163). Neither did we suggest that Egyptian
and Israelite culture were *hopelessly intertwined.* Why should Keryx
attribute to us things we did not say?
but perfectly reasonable* (p. 163). Neither did we suggest that Egyptian
and Israelite culture were *hopelessly intertwined.* Why should Keryx
attribute to us things we did not say?
More bothersome, though, is what he accuses us of not saying when, in his view, we should have done so. For example, regarding the Northwest Semitic incantations written in Egyptian syllabic orthography, he declares, *Tvetdnes [sic]-[Ricks] do not tell us that the texts in question are magical incantations.* I quote from p. 158 of our article: *A number of northwest Semitic texts are included in Egyptian magical papyri. These are mostly incantations that, instead of being translated, were merely transcribed in Egyptian hieratic.* Keryx goes on to complain that *Tvednes [sic]-[Ricks] also do not tell us that before many of the spells is a subject heading in normal Egyptian.* But we did say that these were *Egyptian magical papyri,* didn't we? We also noted that one of the documents had a purely Egyptian text on one side and a transliterated text on the other (p. 159). The fact that there were Egyptian headings has no bearing on the fact that we are dealing with Semitic texts transliterated into Egyptian, which was, after all, the subject of our article. We gave references to all the materials so people like Keryx could look at it if they really wanted more information.
In another place, Keryx complained, *we are not told that when Egyptian scribes of the 2nd millennium B.C.E. used syllabic orthography to render Semitic words and names, it was generally only those loanwords and Semitic names that they so rendered, the rest of the text [is] in ordinary Egyptian.* Here, he not only misrepresented what we wrote, but he missed the point entirely. In footnote 6, we declared that *Semitic words written in the syllabic orthography are sometimes found in late Egyptian documents in the midst of Egyptian sentences; these are clearly borrowings. In the texts we list here, whole Semitic texts, rather than borrowed words, are written in Egyptian script.* In the Egyptian magical papyri we were discussing, it was not just a question of a Semitic word here and there interspersed throughout an Egyptian text, but of whole sentences and paragraphs of Semitic text transliterated into Egyptian characters but contained within documents that, except for the Semitic incantations, were, in fact, Egyptian.
At one point, Keryx wrote, *In defense of Tvedtnes[!]-[Ricks], a footnote speculates on the possibility of a mixed Semitic-Egyptian environment (Memphis?) which would have provided a scribe who could understand both languages. Of course, we are left wondering how 7th century Jerusalem--where Lehi supposedly lived--resembles such an environment.* I frankly don't know to what footnote he has reference.
There was no attempt to establish a geographical environment in which the two languages were used. We merely reported evidence that there are, in fact, Semitic documents transliterated into Egyptian, usually hieratic. This fact alone should be sufficient to make serious thinkers realize that the old criticism that the writing system described for the Book of Mormon is no longer valid. There were such documents anciently. This does not prove that the Book of Mormon is true, but it does invalidate the argument against the writing system it describes. So why does Keryx have to invent things to continue the old argument?
In discussing the demotic text containing Psalm 20:2-6, Keryx stresses that *it is (a) a magical text, (b) written in an Egyptian environment, (c) embedded in a collection of pagan prayers written in Egyptian.* Presumably, this invalidates its use in our study. But again, it is a Semitic text (Aramaic, in this case) transliterated into Egyptian characters. Its contents are irrelevant to the question of whether such a writing system was ever used. Of our treatment of the document, Keryx complains, *We are not told that a text is a paganized version of a biblical prayer embedded in a collction of other pagan prayers.* Again, this is untrue. In describing Papyrus Amherst 63, we wrote, *Among the writings included in the religious text is a paganized version of Psalms 20:2-6.* Keryx takes us to task, saying that we *conveniently neglect to tell us about how this demotic text may have been written, and why.* He then adds, citing Nims and Steiner, *we may hypothesize that it was written for a priest whose Aramaic was so poor that he was able neither to memorize the liturgy nor to read it in Aramaic script.* This suggestion may be correct, but who is to say? My point is that we were merely reporting facts. It was not our intention to determine how, why, or even where these texts were written, only to demonstrate that they exist. So who's really stretching things here?
Regarding another of the documents we discuss, Keryx wrote, *What we are not told is that Shisha-Halevy's reading of the this [sic] highly fragmentary text is uncertain, at many points she is simply unable to figure out the meaning of the text. But even if we grant her tentative and partial reading, what kind of text is this?* Let me first of all correct Keryx on one point. Ariel Shisha-Halevy is a man, not a woman. I know; I took Egyptian and Coptic classes from him at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Now, I can understand that someone who knows only English might think that Ariel is a woman's name, since there are some American women who bear that name. But in Israel, it's a man's name. While I cannot discount the fact that there may be a few Israeli women with this name, I never met one during my nearly nine years of residence there. Does this suggest that Keryx doesn't know Hebrew? If so, why is he critiquing a subject of which he is ignorant? He certainly doesn't know anything about the principal players, since he thinks Shisha-Halevy is a woman. This at least shows that he isn't part of the community of scholars from which he wants to exclude us. (I should add that I have assumed throughout this response that Keryx is a man, but on the assumption that the name is Kery, it could be either a man or a woman. If he/she were a renowned scholar, I would know for sure.)
But back to the issue. Does it matter that Shisha-Halevy's reading is, at points, uncertain? The reading of fragmentary texts is always uncertain. But as far as I know, no scholar has suggested that the text is not, in fact, *An Early North-West Semitic Text in the Egyptian Hieratic Script.* And that is, after all, the point we were making. Again, I reiterate, we were not dealing with content, only with the existence of Semitic texts written in Egyptian characters.
Keryx is disappointed that we *consistently failed to report when the scholars they cite explain the text in terms that undermine their theory.* But the explanations to which he refers are mere hypothesis on the part of the scholars, and our emphasis was on the existence of the texts per se. What difference does it make, for example, whether the
*Arad text was probably [written] by Egyptians who captured the fortress*? The fact that it employs both Hebrew and Egyptian script for a text that can be read entirely in Egyptian is surely significant, is it not? Besides, as I noted earlier, the fact that another Egyptian hieratic document of ca. 700 B.C. was found on the site suggests that we are not merely dealing with a brief conquest of a small Israelite fortress.
*Arad text was probably [written] by Egyptians who captured the fortress*? The fact that it employs both Hebrew and Egyptian script for a text that can be read entirely in Egyptian is surely significant, is it not? Besides, as I noted earlier, the fact that another Egyptian hieratic document of ca. 700 B.C. was found on the site suggests that we are not merely dealing with a brief conquest of a small Israelite fortress.
Keryx does not like the fact that we use the evidence of the Semitic scripts written in Egyptian characters to show that the Book of Mormon story is plausible. First, he wants *examples of reformed Egyptian from the New World* noting that *wild speculations based on unproven assumptions are not worth the paper they are printed on.* Leaving aside the non-scholarly tone of this statement, it seems to me that we are always in the same position with anti-Mormon writers. When we show the plausibility of something from Old World discoveries, they complain that we now need to show it from the New World in order to make it valid. Keryx finds it hard to believe *that a faithful Jew (read Israelite) of the 7th century living in Jerusalem was perfectly fluent in Hebrew, but someone learned some form of Egyptian that he proceeded to use to write his family history (not just some inventories) and the (non paganized) Hebrew scriptures on plates of brass.* It may well be that the texts we discussed were essentially inventories, paganized scriptures, and incantations. But it¢s more than we had in Joseph Smith's time, when the Book of Mormon came off the press making claims about its language that were immediately ridiculed. Now that we have evidence that such a writing system could have been used by an Israelite group that came to the New World, people like Keryx still want to disqualify the Book of Mormon on grounds that the texts to date do
not include Israelite family histories and real (*not paganized*) scriptures. From a real scholar, I might expect a *let's wait and see if more shows up* attitude or at least an *I disagree but respect your work.* But from Keryx we get highly-charged emotional reaction to something that should, at the very least, leave the door open for further investigation.
not include Israelite family histories and real (*not paganized*) scriptures. From a real scholar, I might expect a *let's wait and see if more shows up* attitude or at least an *I disagree but respect your work.* But from Keryx we get highly-charged emotional reaction to something that should, at the very least, leave the door open for further investigation.
Keryx wrote that we *have misreprented the evidence.* But it is clear from the foregoing that it is he who has misrepresented what we wrote. And why? Though I am not a mindreader, I suspect that Keryx's real motive is to simply get people to not read the article, assuming that he has fully examined it and has concluded that it is worthless. Of all the tricks he uses to accomplish this goal, the one I have seen from other anti-Mormon writers is what he writes at the end of his communication: *In sum, I encourage people to actually look up the publications and evidence cited by these FARMS clowns. Go ahead and check to see if they give misleading impressions. (They do.) And then see if their conclusions actually fit their supposed evidence. (It does not.) They are like the fool who tries to win a poker game with a pair of deuces and lots of chips. Go ahead. Call their bluff.*
Ordinarily, I would welcome such a challenge to the reader. But does Keryx really expect that people are going to go out and do all this reading? I doubt it. Besides, after challenging them to *check to see if they give misleading impressions,* rather than let the reader decide, he adds, parenthetically, *they do.* And when he challenges them to *see if their conclusions actually fit their supposed evidence,* he again adds, parenthetically, *it does not.* Obviously, when one gives the *real answer,* one does not expect that the reader will check into the matter. After all, Keryx has reviewed it for everyone and has come to the conclusion he would like all to adopt.
I would like to issue a different challenge. BEFORE you read the articles Keryx wants you to look at, FIRST read the article Stephen Ricks and I wrote. Why? There are two reasons. The first is so you can see what we REALLY said, not what Keryx wants you to think we said. The second is that you cannot know if we correctly used the other materials unless you first read how we used them, not how Keryx says we used them. For those who haven¢t ordered a copy of volume 5 number 2 of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, you can find the article on the FARMS web page at
http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=jbms. And since Keryx mentions John Gee, you may also want to see his *La Trahison des Clercs:
On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon,* in volume 6 No. 1
of Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, for more information.
http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=jbms. And since Keryx mentions John Gee, you may also want to see his *La Trahison des Clercs:
On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon,* in volume 6 No. 1
of Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, for more information.
