Egyptian Names In The Book Of Mormon

[maklelan]

Is Duder changing the spelling so it will sound closer to our Cumorah? Are you really stooping to this kind of scholarship, Dudeness?

Not intentionally. I should have said Comore/Camora instead of Cumora. I should tattoo it on my forehead.

Or you could just remember the Dean Martin classic about the moon hitting your eye like a big pizza pie;

"That's Comore."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Let go of my chestnuts, already!")

Scuza me, but you see, inah ol' Napoli that's Comore!

[Mighty Curelom]

According to the now universally accepted just-so story known as the "LGT," the Nephites were assimilated into the preexisting mesoamerican culture. Some apologists even make the claim that Nephite cities have already been discovered--we just call them Mayan, or Olmec, or what have you.

So the question is, how would this effect the language used by Nephites? First, I think it would be highly unlikely that Nephites (or Lamanites, or any other BoM people) would be still be using Egyptian names after being immersed in Mayan culture for 1000 years. If Egyptian was used as prevalently by Nephites as Her Amun suggests, we should also see its influence on the Mayan language. But we don't. Nobody has ever suggested that Mayan, Olmec, Incan, or any other ancient mesoamerican languages bear any hallmarks of Egyptian influence. But even more problematic for apologists is the lack of mesoamerican language in the BoM. How could BoM people live for 1000 years among Mayans (et al) without picking up words that are characteristically mesoamerican? Words like Xochicalco, Yaxchilan, Omecihuatl, Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, or Chalchiuhtlicue?

[The Dude]

I think Consiglieri's source is not correct. "Moroni" and "Comoros" are cognate names in the local (Malayo-Polynesian with some African borrowings) language, both meaning "place of fire." Which just might have something to do with the fact that the mountain is a volcano.

Hey! That's what I read on RfM but when I shared it with cdowis, he said I needed a better source. Next time I'll just say "Pahoran told me."

The Book of Mormon traces its origins back to the Near East and insists on connections to Egypt, of all places. Now it happens that "Moroni" is a perfectly good Egyptian name; the son of Rameses II is usually called "Merneptah," because no-one knows what the vowels should really be, and so "e" is inserted by default; but when we remove the theophoric element "Ptah," we are left with the consonants "Mrn," and "Moroni" is as good a guess as any.

Cumorah is the same name as Gommorah, which in turn is thought to be one possible source for Qumran. With your subjective partiality towards atheistic explanations, you will of course prefer your rather meaningless coincidence, but I think it considerably more significant that both Cumorah and Qumran were places where sacred records were found deposited after their custodians had been wiped out.

Cumorah = Gommorah which is kind of like Qumran? And I'm taking flack for changing spellings? At least mine was an accident.

I don't see how your explanation reduces the coincidental-ness. It isn't enough to say there are potential Egyptian and Arabic links for the BoM names, on one hand, and definitive Malayo-Polynesian-African names for the island on the other hand. The coincidence remains that in both cases the names are paired.

[consiglieri]

According to the now universally accepted just-so story known as the "LGT," the Nephites were assimilated into the preexisting mesoamerican culture. Some apologists even make the claim that Nephite cities have already been discovered--we just call them Mayan, or Olmec, or what have you.

So the question is, how would this effect the language used by Nephites? First, I think it would be highly unlikely that Nephites (or Lamanites, or any other BoM people) would be still be using Egyptian names after being immersed in Mayan culture for 1000 years. If Egyptian was used as prevalently by Nephites as Her Amun suggests, we should also see its influence on the Mayan language. But we don't. Nobody has ever suggested that Mayan, Olmec, Incan, or any other ancient mesoamerican languages bear any hallmarks of Egyptian influence. But even more problematic for apologists is the lack of mesoamerican language in the BoM. How could BoM people live for 1000 years among Mayans (et al) without picking up words that are characteristically mesoamerican? Words like Xochicalco, Yaxchilan, Omecihuatl, Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, or Chalchiuhtlicue?

So, if I'm understanding you right, MC, Joseph Smith went to all that work digging up Egyptian names and putting them in the Book of Mormon when he should have been focusing on Mayan? How could he have been so short-sighted?

But I am getting the feeling that you are shucking and jiving with your answer.

Are you saying that all the Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon are just coincidence? That is your usual MO.

And if you are, why should I believe that you would say any different even if presented with Mayan names in the Book of Mormon?

I am seeing a pattern of discounting ancient old world evidence in favor of setting a different standard which you know cannot be met.

I am also seeing a concerted effort to avoid dealing with the evidence that has already been adduced in this thread. Magicians call it "misdirection."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[maklelan]

If Egyptian was used as prevalently by Nephites as Her Amun suggests, we should also see its influence on the Mayan language. But we don't. Nobody has ever suggested that Mayan, Olmec, Incan, or any other ancient mesoamerican languages bear any hallmarks of Egyptian influence.

Is this a fact or is it an assumption based on your passive research? My research has turned up this (this is an oft-quoted Lindsay article, I think) :

"Roger Williams Westcott, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, New Jersey (Ph.D. in linguistics from Princeton, a Rhodes scholar, founder of Drew's anthropology program and author of 500 publications, including 40 books, and past president of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, and non-Mormon) finds the arguments of Brian Stubbs compelling. Observe:

Perhaps the most surprising of all Eurasian-American linguistic connections, at least in geographic terms, is that proposed by Brian Stubbs: a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic (or Hamito-Semitic) languages. The Uto-Aztecan languages are, or have been, spoken in western North America from Idaho to El Salvador. One would expect that, if Semites or their linguistic kinsmen from northern Africa were to reach the New World by water, their route would be trans-Altantic. Indeed, what graphonomic evidence there is indicates exactly that: Canaanite inscriptions are found in Georgia and Tennessee as well as in Brazil; and Mediterranean coins, some Hebrew and Moroccan Arabic, are found in Kentucky as well as Venezuela [citing Cyrus Gordon].

But we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. And lexically, at least, it points to the Pacific rather than the Atlantic coast. Stubbs finds Semitic and (more rarely) Egyptian vocabulary in about 20 of 25 extant Uto-Aztecan languages. Of the word-bases in these vernaculars, he finds about 40 percent to be derivable from nearly 500 triliteral Semitic stems. Despite this striking proportion, however, he does not regard Uto-Aztecan as a branch of Semitic or Afro-Asiatic. Indeed, he treats Uto-Aztecan Semitisms as borrowings. But, because these borrowings are at once so numerous and so well "nativized," he prefers to regard them as an example of linguistic creolization - that is, of massive lexical adaptation of one language group to another. (By way of analogy, . . . historical linguists regard the heavy importation of French vocabulary into Middle English as a process of creolization.)

Of the various Afro-Asiatic languages represented in Uto-Aztecan vocabulary, the following occur in descending order of frequency:

1. Canaanite (cited in its Hebrew form)

2. Aramaic

3. Arabic

4. Ethiopic

5. Akkadian (usually in its Assyrian form)

6. Ancient Egyptian

Among the many Semitic loan-words in Uto-Aztecan, the following, listed by Stubbs, seems unexceptionable as regards both form and meaning:

Hebrew baraq lightning > Papago berok lightning

Aramaic katpa shoulder > Papago kotva shoulder

Hebrew hiskal be prudent > Nahua iskal be prudent

Hebrew yes

[Mighty Curelom]

So, if I'm understanding you right, MC, Joseph Smith went to all that work digging up Egyptian names and putting them in the Book of Mormon when he should have been focusing on Mayan? How could he have been so short-sighted?

Not Joseph Smith; it's Mormon apologists who went through the trouble of digging up Egyptian names that somewhat resemble JS's made up names. And the reason they focus on Egyptian is because the structures of Mayan, Aztec, or Olmec words aren't conducive to being matched up with invented words. It's so much easier to find such mind boggling matches as "Hem/Hem" than to find a BoM word that matches up with "Chalchiuhtlicue." (Incidentally, Hebrew is even more conducive to apologetic word-games, what with not even having to bother with vowels.)

[The Dude]

Is it your position that this is simply a coincidence? Or that Joseph Smith actually copped the names off a map for use in the Book of Mormon?

I'm willing to say it is a coincidence, but I think there could be something else going on. Maybe... but I have no proof. I'll save it for another thread, when I have time to babysit my own ideas. I don't think JS coppied anything from a map.

One thing to keep in mind is that JS didn't get the names Moroni and Cumorah from the plates -- they were part of his back-story years before he started writing his book.

At first blush, I would agree that the appearance of Moroni and Cumorah in the Book of Mormon would appear to be a coincidence to the city of Moroni on the island of Cumoras in the Indian Ocean.

Boy, that feels good to get that off my chest!

Is it your feeling, Dude, that if I make that concession, you have adequately responded to the list of documented Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon?

It is my feeling that if you concede my example is probably "just a coincidence" then I am free to say your examples are the same. My two-pair example is more significant than your list of unpaired matches.

[maklelan]

It is my feeling that if you concede my example is probably "just a coincidence" then I am free to say your examples are the same. My two-pair example is more significant than your list of unpaired matches.

I think the trouble you find is in the fact that we are presenting several different correlations that appear in different contexts and apply only to particular cultures, while you have presented one coincidence that we now understand is a rather forced one. You cannot beat off volumes of correlations from different cultures, peoples and facets of those cultures with one coincidence.

So, if I'm understanding you right, MC, Joseph Smith went to all that work digging up Egyptian names and putting them in the Book of Mormon when he should have been focusing on Mayan? How could he have been so short-sighted?

Not Joseph Smith; it's Mormon apologists who went through the trouble of digging up Egyptian names that somewhat resemble JS's made up names. And the reason they focus on Egyptian is because the structures of Mayan, Aztec, or Olmec words aren't conducive to being matched up with invented words. It's so much easier to find such mind boggling matches as "Hem/Hem" than to find a BoM word that matches up with "Chalchiuhtlicue." (Incidentally, Hebrew is even more conducive to apologetic word-games, what with not even having to bother with vowels.)

Can I assume that you are busy crafting a response to my above post?

[Not quite me]

You cannot beat off volumes of correlations from different cultures, peoples and facets of those cultures with one coincidence.

Volumes? How did we get from "several" to "volumes" without batting an eyelash?

[maklelan]

You cannot beat off volumes of correlations from different cultures, peoples and facets of those cultures with one coincidence.

Volumes? How did we get from "several" to "volumes" without batting an eyelash?

Surely you are aware of the volumes and volumes of literature that have been published concerning these and numerous other correlations.

[Not quite me]

You cannot beat off volumes of correlations from different cultures, peoples and facets of those cultures with one coincidence.

Volumes? How did we get from "several" to "volumes" without batting an eyelash?

Surely you are aware of the volumes and volumes of literature that have been published concerning these and numerous other correlations.

Surely. Just as I am aware of the volumes of literature that have been published regarding the numerous anachronisms in the book. I would imagine it all depends on what you consider to be evidence.

[maklelan]

You cannot beat off volumes of correlations from different cultures, peoples and facets of those cultures with one coincidence.

Volumes? How did we get from "several" to "volumes" without batting an eyelash?

Surely you are aware of the volumes and volumes of literature that have been published concerning these and numerous other correlations.

Surely. Just as I am aware of the volumes of literature that have been published regarding the numerous anachronisms in the book. I would imagine it all depends on what you consider to be evidence.

I guess we could take into account the sound manner in which those anachronisms are completely obliterated by modern discoveries and scholarship combined with the general reticence on the part of non-Mormons to even address the correlations beyond "It's just a coincidence!" would make for pretty effective criteria.

My above post showing that (despite the premature denial of others) Semitic languages and Mesoamerican languages are actually intimately related, remains completely ignored. This is a perfect example of just not responding to the evidence, while I cannot find a single anachronism that has not been adequately addressed and dismissed. Care to point one out? I will be happy to respond in a most prompt manner.

[The Dude]

I think the trouble you find is in the fact that we are presenting several different correlations that appear in different contexts and apply only to particular cultures, while you have presented one coincidence that we now understand is a rather forced one. You cannot beat off volumes of correlations from different cultures, peoples and facets of those cultures with one coincidence.

Lists of correlations from many different sources is just more evidence that apologists are cherry picking. I don't have to "beat them off" I simply shrug them off.

You should take Mighty Curelom's comment more seriously, guys, because LGT predicts Mesoamerican influence in the BoM. Having or not having so-called Egyptian correlations is interesting at best, but not having Mesoamerican names is an awful problem for you. This was articulated best by Addictio in this thread:

BofM Personal Names: Problematic, or Not?

Enjoy!

[Not quite me]

You cannot beat off volumes of correlations from different cultures, peoples and facets of those cultures with one coincidence.

Volumes? How did we get from "several" to "volumes" without batting an eyelash?

Surely you are aware of the volumes and volumes of literature that have been published concerning these and numerous other correlations.

Surely. Just as I am aware of the volumes of literature that have been published regarding the numerous anachronisms in the book. I would imagine it all depends on what you consider to be evidence.

I guess we could take into account the sound manner in which those anachronisms are completely obliterated by modern discoveries and scholarship combined with the general reticence on the part of non-Mormons to even address the correlations beyond "It's just a coincidence!" would make for pretty effective criteria.

My above post showing that (despite the premature denial of others) Semitic languages and Mesoamerican languages are actually intimately related, remains completely ignored. This is a perfect example of just not responding to the evidence, while I cannot find a single anachronism that has not been adequately addressed and dismissed. Care to point one out? I will be happy to respond in a most prompt manner.

One of the major textual anachronisms I see is the dependence of Alma 12-13 on Hebrews 5-7 (as well as other chunks of the NT) in its expansion of Paul's teachings about priesthood and Melchizedek. Unless Paul was magically channeling Alma, the text is clearly a later production that takes off from the NT.

Sorry to have gotten on a tangent. My reading of Stubbs is that he picks a word from one New World language here and another word from a different language, as if that constitutes a major correlation. I won't dismiss a link between Middle Eastern language and Uto-Aztecan, but it's hardly the huge find Lindsay seems to think it is at this point.

[journeyman]

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

With all this interesting speculation, just remember that the Nephites and Lamanites didn't come from Egypt. They came from Jerusalem. Also, is Egyptian really easier to write than Hebrew or any other language from those times?

Have you ever wondered why these Jewish people bothered with a reformed language that has never been found other than a mention of it in the BoM? Did Lehi make up this language up after they got on the boat to the Amercias? If so, that is quite an amazing thing, as even Brigham Young couldn't even make the Deseret Alphabet work.

Also, the BoM has many people passing this written reformed language down from generation to generation, yet we have not seen a single example of it in the Old or New worlds.

But let's keep the conversation going just for the sake of entertainment.

[maklelan]

Mormon and Moroni are the ones who edited and abridged the Book of Mormon, and they did so with a specific agenda, which is mentioned in the front of the Book of Mormon. Some people point to the absence of festival or Mosaic law details as evidence that the book is fraudulent, but Mormon and Moroni had no reason to include those details, so why would they?

I don't know what they decided to leave out, but (if the record is true) it was a lot. I'm sure there are a dozen reasons why they would have left out Mayan names, but I'm not going to speculate on them. I find the mountain of correlations to be actual evidence, while arguments from silence command considerably less respect. I believe extant evidence takes precendence over an argument from silence, so I think the burden of proof now lies on you to disprove the evidence. Counteracting evidence with a request for distinct evidence regarding a different topic is not debating, it's dodging.

For the third time, I would appreciate a response to the linguistical evidence I supplied before any new concerns about different topics are introduced. Is it too much to request that courtesy?

[journeyman]

According to the now universally accepted just-so story known as the "LGT," the Nephites were assimilated into the preexisting mesoamerican culture. Some apologists even make the claim that Nephite cities have already been discovered--we just call them Mayan, or Olmec, or what have you.

So the question is, how would this effect the language used by Nephites? First, I think it would be highly unlikely that Nephites (or Lamanites, or any other BoM people) would be still be using Egyptian names after being immersed in Mayan culture for 1000 years. If Egyptian was used as prevalently by Nephites as Her Amun suggests, we should also see its influence on the Mayan language. But we don't. Nobody has ever suggested that Mayan, Olmec, Incan, or any other ancient mesoamerican languages bear any hallmarks of Egyptian influence. But even more problematic for apologists is the lack of mesoamerican language in the BoM. How could BoM people live for 1000 years among Mayans (et al) without picking up words that are characteristically mesoamerican? Words like Xochicalco, Yaxchilan, Omecihuatl, Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, or Chalchiuhtlicue?

Those words were too hard for Joseph to say!

[Pahoran]

Lists of correlations from many different sources is just more evidence that apologists are cherry picking. I don't have to "beat them off" I simply shrug them off.

That's right. You blithely ignore the work of serious scholars who know vastly more about the subject than you do because they don't confirm your prejudices.

But if some sarcastic dilettante does, you then enthusiastially endorse him, such as:

You should take Mighty Curelom's comment more seriously, guys, because LGT predicts Mesoamerican influence in the BoM.

Only in the hands of someone determined to dismiss it.

Having or not having so-called Egyptian correlations is interesting at best, but not having Mesoamerican names is an awful problem for you.

No. It is not.

This was articulated best by Addictio in this thread:

BofM Personal Names: Problematic, or Not?

Enjoy!

So all the atheists agree. Now isn't that a surprise!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

According to the now universally accepted just-so story known as the "LGT," the Nephites were assimilated into the preexisting mesoamerican culture. Some apologists even make the claim that Nephite cities have already been discovered--we just call them Mayan, or Olmec, or what have you.

The only "now universally accepted just-so story" that exists in connection with the LGT is the anti-Mormon canard that it is some kind of retreat in the face of Scientific evidence.

Regards,

Pahoran

[maklelan]

One of the major textual anachronisms I see is the dependence of Alma 12-13 on Hebrews 5-7 (as well as other chunks of the NT) in its expansion of Paul's teachings about priesthood and Melchizedek. Unless Paul was magically channeling Alma, the text is clearly a later production that takes off from the NT.

Or another consideration is that both were receiving their inspiration from the same God and Joseph Smith decided to couch concepts he was familiar with in language he was familiar with. This issue has been dealt with at extremely great length.

Sorry to have gotten on a tangent. My reading of Stubbs is that he picks a word from one New World language here and another word from a different language, as if that constitutes a major correlation. I won't dismiss a link between Middle Eastern language and Uto-Aztecan, but it's hardly the huge find Lindsay seems to think it is at this point.

I expected the only response would be a simple downplay of the importance or degree of the correlations, and I still find the fact that a PhD in linguistics and a Rhodes scholar back up the argument to be more compelling than your dismissal.

[Not quite me]

One of the major textual anachronisms I see is the dependence of Alma 12-13 on Hebrews 5-7 (as well as other chunks of the NT) in its expansion of Paul's teachings about priesthood and Melchizedek. Unless Paul was magically channeling Alma, the text is clearly a later production that takes off from the NT.

Or another consideration is that both were receiving their inspiration from the same God and Joseph Smith decided to couch concepts he was familiar with in language he was familiar with. This issue has been dealt with at extremely great length.

Sorry to have gotten on a tangent. My reading of Stubbs is that he picks a word from one New World language here and another word from a different language, as if that constitutes a major correlation. I won't dismiss a link between Middle Eastern language and Uto-Aztecan, but it's hardly the huge find Lindsay seems to think it is at this point.

I expected the only response would be a simple downplay of the importance or degree of the correlations, and I still find the fact that a PhD in linguistics and a Rhodes scholar back up the argument to be more compelling than your dismissal.

I'm not talking about language similarites. Thematically, the Alma passages take Hebrews from their starting point and expand on them. That can't be blithely dismissed as merely couching the same sentiments in similar KJV language.

As I said, I did not dismiss Stubbs, but I am waiting for a something a little more concrete before casting judgment. I think caution is wise.

[maklelan]

Having or not having so-called Egyptian correlations is interesting at best, but not having Mesoamerican names is an awful problem for you.

No. It is not.

Don't you find it amusing that real evidence is being dismissed as merely "interesting" while an argument from silence is being touted as the superlative key to all discussion on the veracity of the Book of Mormon? Have these people never been educated in historical methodology?

[maklelan]

I'm not talking about language similarites. Thematically, the Alma passages take Hebrews from their starting point and expand on them. That can't be blithely dismissed as merely couching the same sentiments in similar KJV language.

But that was only half of my argument. The other half was that these were two different prophets receiving the same inspiration.

As I said, I did not dismiss Stubbs, but I am waiting for a something a little more concrete before casting judgment. I think caution is wise.

My argument wasn't just Stubbs. It was also the approval and praise of one of the country's foremost authorities on linguistics. You do not consider that concrete?

[Not quite me]

I'm not talking about language similarites. Thematically, the Alma passages take Hebrews from their starting point and expand on them. That can't be blithely dismissed as merely couching the same sentiments in similar KJV language.

But that was only half of my argument. The other half was that these were two different prophets receiving the same inspiration.

As I said, I did not dismiss Stubbs, but I am waiting for a something a little more concrete before casting judgment. I think caution is wise.

My argument wasn't just Stubbs. It was also the approval and praise of one of the country's foremost authorities on linguistics. You do not consider that concrete?

If they were receiving the same inspiration, then one text would not be dependent on the other, would it?

As for the Lindsay article, I would reserve judgment until I can read Stubbs' article and its praise in their entirety. I've read enough Lindsay to know not to take isolated quotes at face value.

[maklelan]

If they were receiving the same inspiration, then one text would not be dependent on the other, would it?

If they were receiving the same revelation then neither is dependent on the other. I said one time to my friend (as I almost killed myself in a freak bike accident) "I'm a hazard to myself." My friend insisted I was quoting a Pink song that says, "I'm a hazard to myself," but I'd never heard that song in all my life. Granted the two examples vary greatly in length and complexity, but two people can write the same text without being dependent on each other, especially if the inspiration is coming from the same source and the person translating one of those texts has decided to translate into King James English, the language in which the other text comes to us.