Egyptian Names In The Book Of Mormon

[consiglieri]

I think it is pretty well established by now that authentic Egyptian names show up in the text of the Book of Mormon.

In the 1900's, one of the most reknowned individual in the world in ancient Near

Eastern studies was William F. Albright. It has been a

common practice for anti-Mormons to write letters to such erudite

individuals in an attempt to get a response from them that they can then use

in fighting against the Church. One such person, after writing a series of

infammatory letters designed to elicit negative comments about LDS

scriptures from prominent Near Eastern scholars, received a response from

William F. Albright of Johns Hopkins University, who expressed doubts that

Joseph Smith could have learned Egyptian from any early nineteenth century

sources. Albright first explained that he was a Protestant and hence not a

believer in the Book of Mormon, but then observed, "It is all the more

surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor[an] which

appear in the book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the

original language being 'Reformed Egyptian.'" Puzzled at the existence of

such names in the obscure book published by Joseph Smith in 1830, Albright

vaguely suggested that the young Mormon leader was some kind of "religious

genius."

Is this evidence for authentic ancient Egyptian influence in the Book of Mormon, or just another in the increasingly lengthy list of coincidences that Joseph Smith somehow happened to get right?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. The above is based on research by John Tvetdness (and parts lifted in their entirety from a paper he wrote).

[The Dude]

Yep, probably a coincidence. Just like Moroni being a city on the island of Cumora in the Indian Ocean.

...right?

[consiglieri]

Yep, probably a coincidence. Just like Moroni being a city on the island of Cumora in the Indian Ocean.

...right?

Hey, Duder, how you been? I have to admit I figured you for the "coincidence" side of the ledger.

Do you think the "coincidence" with the name Paanchi is made any more remote by the fact that it contains a double-a, which is a decidedly non-English construct?

And is there a point when the cumulative number of "coincidences" in a text starts to look like more than just "coincidence"?

All the best to you, my friend!

--Consiglieri

[William Schryver]

Yep, probably a coincidence. Just like Moroni being a city on the island of Cumora in the Indian Ocean.

...right?

Hey, Duder, how you been? I have to admit I figured you for the "coincidence" side of the ledger.

Do you think the "coincidence" with the name Paanchi is made any more remote by the fact that it contains a double-a, which is a decidedly non-English construct?

And is there a point when the cumulative number of "coincidences" in a text starts to look like more than just "coincidence"?

All the best to you, my friend!

--Consiglieri

Don't be too hard on him. He's still irked over the fact that David Stewart has refused to take his ball and go home.

Of course, it's been several days now since Stewart's powerful and persuasive reply (10/22) to what I'm sure TD figured was his own tour de force.

Maybe TD is the one who has taken his ball and gone home?

On topic response: Of course, are we not led to understand that the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian?

[The Dude]

Don't be too hard on him. He's still irked over the fact that David Stewart has refused to take his ball and go home.

Of course, it's been several days now since Stewart's powerful and persuasive reply (10/22) to what I'm sure TD figured was his own tour de force.

Maybe TD is the one who has taken his ball and gone home?

No, Will. I'm working on a good reply.

[consiglieri]

So why is it I have the uncomfortable feeling I have just been thrust into the middle of an internecine dispute?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[William Schryver]

Don't be too hard on him. He's still irked over the fact that David Stewart has refused to take his ball and go home.

Of course, it's been several days now since Stewart's powerful and persuasive reply (10/22) to what I'm sure TD figured was his own tour de force.

Maybe TD is the one who has taken his ball and gone home?

No, Will. I'm working on a good reply.

Of course, I never really doubted it for a minute. I'm just getting impatient. You should drop all of your other interests and concerns when I'm impatient.

[Olavarria]

i recommend any one interested in the subject to buy or check out the two Egyptian dictionaries Wallis Budge created. Get the dictionaries and the list of names at the back of the BoM and have at it.

Aha, Aha

Nephi, Nefri

Paanchi, Pianki

Pahoran, Pahuru

Deseret, Teshret

Her-Amun, Helamen

Meri-Amen, Moriamon

Ameri-Aten,Morianton

Hermounts, Hermonthis(Her-montu)

Herihor, Korihor

Hem,Hem

Hemen, Himni

Middoni, Mittani

Sam, Sam-Tawwi

Manti, Montu

Zenefi, Snefru

Zezorum, Zoser

Amenidab, Amenathabi

....................................... Im tired

[Bill Hamblin]

Yep, probably a coincidence. Just like Moroni being a city on the island of Cumora in the Indian Ocean

Of course there is such a thing as linguistic coincidence; it's called homophony. Moroni, for example, is a perfectly common Italian name. There is even a mildly famous 16th century Italian painter named Giovanni Battista Moroni.

There are methods, however, to control for coincidence. Part is to find multiple parallels drawn from a wide range of disciplines: history, religion, art, archaeology, ethno-history, anthropology, geography, philology, textual criticism, etc. There comes a point, after dozens or even hundreds of such parallels have been demonstrated, when mere dogmatic assertion of coincidence appears less like a serious argument, and more like a faith-claim and an excuse. (Some of us, you know, are skeptical about such things.)

[The Dude]

There comes a point, after dozens or even hundreds of such parallels have been demonstrated, when mere dogmatic assertion of coincidence appears less like a serious argument, and more like a faith-claim and an excuse. (Some of us, you know, are skeptical about such things.)

And that's when serious non-LDS scholars sit up and say, "Hey, maybe there's something to this claim of ancient history!" Has that happened yet?

[phaedrus ut]

There are methods, however, to control for coincidence. Part is to find multiple parallels drawn from a wide range of disciplines: history, religion, art, archaeology, ethno-history, anthropology, geography, philology, textual criticism, etc. There comes a point, after dozens or even hundreds of such parallels have been demonstrated, when mere dogmatic assertion of coincidence appears less like a serious argument, and more like a faith-claim and an excuse. (Some of us, you know, are skeptical about such things.)

Dozens or even hundreds have been demonstrated? What a dim wit I must be because I've yet to see a single one.

Phaedrus

[Moksha]

Could we now place Her Amun's list on the thread for proofs of the Book of Mormon?

There is even a mildly famous 16th century Italian painter named Giovanni Battista Moroni.

Good point. And let's not forget his Irish cousin MacOroni.

[Olavarria]

And that's when serious non-LDS scholars sit up and say, "Hey, maybe there's something to this claim of ancient history!" Has that happened yet?

Why does it have to come from non-lds scholars?

[USU78]

Yep, probably a coincidence. Just like Moroni being a city on the island of Cumora in the Indian Ocean

Of course there is such a thing as linguistic coincidence; it's called homophony. Moroni, for example, is a perfectly common Italian name. There is even a mildly famous 16th century Italian painter named Giovanni Battista Moroni.

There are methods, however, to control for coincidence. Part is to find multiple parallels drawn from a wide range of disciplines: history, religion, art, archaeology, ethno-history, anthropology, geography, philology, textual criticism, etc. There comes a point, after dozens or even hundreds of such parallels have been demonstrated, when mere dogmatic assertion of coincidence appears less like a serious argument, and more like a faith-claim and an excuse. (Some of us, you know, are skeptical about such things.)

When I was on my mission in Austria (with its proximity to and historical connections with Italy), I kept hearing the following on the streets: "Heisse Marroni! Heisse! Heiss!" -- "Hot chestnuts! Hot! Hot!" from vendors. Marroni is the Italian plural for the delicasy and is an Italian loanword to German.

In the Joseph Smith story that was part of the then 1st missionary discussion, Moroni tells JSJr his name, "Ich heisse Moroni!" -- "My name is Moroni!"

Heisse (hot) and heisse (am called) are German homophones -- and are spelt the same as well!

Marroni (chestnut) and Moroni (personal name) are Italian/Nephite homophones.

USU "But it amused us to think Moroni thought of himself as a chestnut" 78

[consiglieri]

And that's when serious non-LDS scholars sit up and say, "Hey, maybe there's something to this claim of ancient history!" Has that happened yet?

Why does it have to come from non-lds scholars?

Just thought I would mention that the original post in this thread does, in fact, come from a non-LDS scholar.

His name is William F. Albright. When he refers to Joseph Smith as some sort of "religious genius," I see that as the equivalent of saying, "Hey, maybe there's something to this claim of ancient history!"

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cdowis]

duplicate

[cksalmon]

Yep, probably a coincidence. Just like Moroni being a city on the island of Cumora in the Indian Ocean

Of course there is such a thing as linguistic coincidence; it's called homophony. Moroni, for example, is a perfectly common Italian name. There is even a mildly famous 16th century Italian painter named Giovanni Battista Moroni.

There are methods, however, to control for coincidence. Part is to find multiple parallels drawn from a wide range of disciplines: history, religion, art, archaeology, ethno-history, anthropology, geography, philology, textual criticism, etc. There comes a point, after dozens or even hundreds of such parallels have been demonstrated, when mere dogmatic assertion of coincidence appears less like a serious argument, and more like a faith-claim and an excuse. (Some of us, you know, are skeptical about such things.)

Well, of course, homophones are grounded in audition rather than etymology.

The coincidence of purportedly Egyptian names in BoM vis-a-vis known Egyptian names moves us into the realms of etymology and philology. Neither of these serve as a control, except in a most rudimentary fasion, for incidental homophony.

Best.

CKS

[The Dude]

Just thought I would mention that the original post in this thread does, in fact, come from a non-LDS scholar.

His name is William F. Albright. When he refers to Joseph Smith as some sort of "religious genius," I see that as the equivalent of saying, "Hey, maybe there's something to this claim of ancient history!"

I would also say JS was a religious genius: a genius at crafting a religion. I'm also pretty much an athiest. See how your interpretation of Albright doesn't necessarily follow from what he said?

[cdowis]

Yep, probably a coincidence. Just like Moroni being a city on the island of Cumora in the Indian Ocean.

...right?

Yep, we talked about that and how it was possibly related to the BOM Moroni and Cumorah. You gave a wonderous sounding reply and when I asked for your sources, you gave the amazing admission:

>I don't know for a fact that the origins I posted are correct. It is just something I read on the internet... From a thread in the ***RfM** archive: [emphasis mine]

I am impressed with your references. Is this the same person who gave us the Chinese translation of Mormon?

[The Dude]

Yep, probably a coincidence. Just like Moroni being a city on the island of Cumora in the Indian Ocean.

...right?

Yep, we talked about that and how it was possibly related to the BOM Moroni and Cumorah. You gave a wonderous sounding reply and when I asked for your sources, you gave the amazing admission:

>I don't know for a fact that the origins I posted are correct. It is just something I read on the internet... From a thread in the ***RfM** archive: [emphasis mine]

If you are going to say something cute, at least give us something worthwhile and documented besides some "dude" on RFM.

cdowis: In response to your fanciful explanation, which you didn't bother to transport into this thread, I gave one a little more grounded in reality. Anyways, I said it then and I'm saying it now, I think it was just a coincidence. I don't believe every parallel is meaningful.

[consiglieri]

Her Amun mentions the presence of the Egyptian name, "Aha," in the Book of Mormon. This is a direct hit with the ancient Egyptian King, Aha, who many scholars equate with Menses, the first ruler of a united Egypt.

Making the "coincidence" all the more remarkable is that "Aha" means "The Fighter" in Egyptian, and the one place it is used in the Book of Mormon is in reference to an otherwise unmentioned soldier named, (you guessed it), "Aha." (Alma 16:5-6)

Oh, yes, and this name appears nowhere in the Bible.

Documentation provided below is from the decidedly non-LDS publication called "National Geographic," from April 2005.

King Aha, "The Fighter," was not killed while unifying the Nile's two warring kingdoms, nor while building the capital of Memphis. One legend has it that the first ruler of a united Egypt was killed in a hunting accident after a reign of 62 years, unceremoniously trampled to death by a rampaging hippopotamus. News of his demise brought a separate, special terror to his staff. For many, the honor of serving the king in life would lead to the more dubious distinction of serving the king in death. . . .

And the coincidences just keep on coming.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bill Hamblin]

And that's when serious non-LDS scholars sit up and say, "Hey, maybe there's something to this claim of ancient history!" Has that happened yet?

Methodologically this position is extremely unsound. If all scholars took your position, there would be absolutely no intellectual progress.

On the other hand, rejection of coincidence as an explanatory model does not require one accept historicity. It does require, however, that those who reject historicity offer a coherent consistent counter-explanation that deals with those features of the text once dismissed as coincidence. This, of course, critics have uniformly failed to do. A faith-based appeal to dismiss evidence which would seem to contradict one's theory is not a superior stance to engaging and accounting for that evidence.

See Daniel Peterson, â??Not So Easily Dismissedâ? in FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): xi-xlviii.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=582

http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=MTA5...p;type=cmV2aWV3

[The Dude]

Hmmm... I wonder if the number of words in the original BoM is some factor of the number of stones in the Great Pyramid. Now that would be a coincidence, would in not?

[selek]

Hmmm... I wonder if the number of words in the original BoM is some factor of the number of stones in the Great Pyramid. Now that would be a coincidence, would in not?

Only if it also coincided with the number of rocks in the average "anti's" head.

[The Dude]

And that's when serious non-LDS scholars sit up and say, "Hey, maybe there's something to this claim of ancient history!" Has that happened yet?

Methodologically this position is extremely unsound. If all scholars took your position, there would be absolutely no intellectual progress.

Scholarship moves forward through consensus. If you can't convince anyone but fellow believers, then you are stuck with proto-scholarship. So what are you talking about?

On the other hand, rejection of coincidence as an explanatory model does not require one accept historicity. It does require, however, that those who reject historicity offer a coherent consistent counter-explanation that deals with those features of the text once dismissed as coincidence. This, of course, critics have uniformly failed to do. A faith-based appeal to dismiss evidence which would seem to contradict one's theory is not a superior stance to engaging and accounting for that evidence.

Yeah, but accepting the linked Moroni-Cumora parallel as proof that JS made up his story would support my view that the BoM is a fake. Yet I accept your faith-based dismissal that it is just a coincidence. What's up with that?