For those who do not have Ritner's book, here are a few quotes regarding Ritner's opinion of Nibley's ability to translate/transliterate Egyptian. Bracket comments are mine.
Robert Ritner in the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri pg 82 wrote:In 1975 Nibley attempted... a translation of the unrestored portions of Fragments XI and X .[The Hor scroll on which we know the Book of Abraham was supposed to be according to Joseph Smith's translation itself and the KEP]Nibleys volume was expressly composed to provide a Mormon rebuttal to the interpretive analysis of Egyptologist, including Baer, with whom he had studied briefly and informally. 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". Moreover, his transliterations defy both conventional and internal systems, with inconsistency and conflation of alphabetic signs, punctuation, etc. 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.
Tacitly acknowledging this source of embarrasment, Jon Gee and Michael Rhodes have attempted to justify Nibley's methods---while promptly dropping them---in their heavily reworked "re-edition" of the 1975 volume. Noted 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..."
Robert Ritner in the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri pg 84 wrote:The retention of many of Nibley's errors show clearly that the work of Nibley. rather than that of Baer, was the immediate source from which Rhodes began his work
On page 125 alone Ritner has 12 footnotes that all start "Misread by Nibley".
Ritner is also pretty direct when it come to what he thinks of Jon Gee's apologetic work. Thought the translation portions of the book are footnotes that start out "Misread by Nibley and followed by Gee and/or Rhodes."
Robert Ritner in the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri pg 97 wrote: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 [in The Hagiography of Doubting Thomas] 1998, p. 176:
"Since I have a Ph.D in Egyptology, I am an expert. All anti=Mormon should therefore unquestioningly accept my opinion."
Gee's apologetic assertions, I stress again, would not have been acceptable in his coursework. I gain no personal pleasure--and remain deeply saddened--by the need to disavow my former student.