The Full Text Of The William Albright Letter

[urroner]

Maybe it late and most aren't on the internet or maybe they are all gathered around the radio, eagerly anticipating the destruction of Wyoming by BYU.

GO BIG BLUE!!!

[Marmonboy]

Isn't the game tomorrow night?

--Marmonboy, who won't be sitting aroung the radio tonight.

[Edit--a hearty slap to the forehead for me. I was just informed that an entire day has disappeared from my life, and the game is, in fact tonight. GO COUGARS. Now I must leave work, and go home to my radio.]

[urroner]

Isn't the game tomorrow night?

--Marmonboy, who won't be sitting aroung the radio tonight.

Listening to the game right now on byuradio.asx. It's still the first quarter and the score is 21 - 0 for BYU.

[Olavarria]

Facts are stuborn things

[William Schryver]

Dear USU78,

Thanks for posting the photo of the actual letter! You are the best!

Today you are a man, my son. Time to put away your dolls and dishes.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Go ahead and take all the credit. I'm going to reply to your dossier and say that you're a thunder stealer!

[USU78]

GO BIG BLUE!!!

I didn't know you were an Aggie.

Small world.

[urroner]

GO BIG BLUE!!!

I didn't know you were an Aggie.

Small world.

Both of my parents were Aggies, but I broke with tradition and went to the Zoo. That was a long time ago, but while there I helped two professors discover fire and taught Abraham's sons how to herd sheep.

[USU78]

Both of my parents were Aggies, but I broke with tradition and went to the Zoo. That was a long time ago, but while there I helped two professors discover fire and taught Abraham's sons how to herd sheep.

Repentance is ever and always the path to redemption.

It's not too late.

USU "Come back from the Dark Side!" 78

[cacheman]

I am starting to get the feeling that we are just talking here amongst ourselves.

Where now the masses clamoring for production of the letter? All is silent. Not a word is spoken.

What does it mean when the lady protesteth not at all?

I'm seeing that you are prone to exaggeration. I guess the masses would be me, Gervin, and Jaybear who have now all replied on this thread.

My thoughts on the letter are as follows: As I'm pretty much ignorant on matters of Egyptology, I give credence to those with credentials. So, I would say that the statement by Dr. Albright lends strength to the theory of ancient origins of the Book of Mormon.

From the other thread:

The camps seem to have split between (1) The presence of authentically ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon is evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient; and, (2) The presence of authentically ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon proves nothing because it is merely "coincidence."

A number of non-LDS scholars have been cited who fall into category number one above.

Could you please elaborate on this "number of non-LDS scholars" who fall into category number one? Thank you.

Here's some stuff from the FARM's website in which Dr. Gee is responding to Ashments criticisms of Dr. Nibley:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=200

Where did the names in the Book of Mormon originate?

Claim: Korihor and Paanchi are not Egyptian names, as Nibley asserts. Ashment, NABM, 343-44. Response: One cannot rule out the possibility that Paanchi is Egyptian. Gee, RBBM, 110-11.

Claim: Book of Mormon names are accounted for by the process of "affixation." Ashment, NABM, 346-50. Response: This analysis ignores authentic Near Eastern name stems and many nonbiblical names. Gee, RBBM, 102-6.

Claim: Nibley's claim that the names Pahoran, Mormon, and Deseret have Egyptian roots is faulty. Ashment, NABM, 344-45. Response: When first published thirty years ago, Nibley's theories were based on then-current scholarship. Gee, RBBM, 110-11.

Has Dr. Gee written more on this subject? He appears to be more cautious in his statements. Am I understanding him correctly? I'm curious as to the current scholarship on this issue.

Thanks,

cacheman

edited to add the url for the FARM's page

[urroner]

Both of my parents were Aggies, but I broke with tradition and went to the Zoo. That was a long time ago, but while there I helped two professors discover fire and taught Abraham's sons how to herd sheep.

Repentance is ever and always the path to redemption.

It's not too late.

USU "Come back from the Dark Side!" 78

USU, you are one sick puppy. Physician, heal thyself.

Nanner, nanner

[consiglieri]

Okay, it is a new day, and I come back to this seminal thread only to find that not only have those who wanted to see the actual letter (Gervin excepted) fled the field, but that it has degenerated into a discussion of NCAA allegiances.

Oh, the shame of it all!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. to William Schryver--By complementing USU78, I did not mean to take away from your aid and assistance which made USU78's efforts at posting the image of the letter possible. You are the best! USU78 is only the second best!

All the best . . . to you both . . . just a little less to USU78.

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I am starting to get the feeling that we are just talking here amongst ourselves.

Where now the masses clamoring for production of the letter? All is silent. Not a word is spoken.

What does it mean when the lady protesteth not at all?

I'm seeing that you are prone to exaggeration. I guess the masses would be me, Gervin, and Jaybear who have now all replied on this thread.

My thoughts on the letter are as follows: As I'm pretty much ignorant on matters of Egyptology, I give credence to those with credentials. So, I would say that the statement by Dr. Albright lends strength to the theory of ancient origins of the Book of Mormon.

From the other thread:

The camps seem to have split between (1) The presence of authentically ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon is evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient; and, (2) The presence of authentically ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon proves nothing because it is merely "coincidence."

A number of non-LDS scholars have been cited who fall into category number one above.

Could you please elaborate on this "number of non-LDS scholars" who fall into category number one? Thank you.

Here's some stuff from the FARM's website in which Dr. Gee is responding to Ashments criticisms of Dr. Nibley:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=200

Where did the names in the Book of Mormon originate?

Claim: Korihor and Paanchi are not Egyptian names, as Nibley asserts. Ashment, NABM, 343-44. Response: One cannot rule out the possibility that Paanchi is Egyptian. Gee, RBBM, 110-11.

Claim: Book of Mormon names are accounted for by the process of "affixation." Ashment, NABM, 346-50. Response: This analysis ignores authentic Near Eastern name stems and many nonbiblical names. Gee, RBBM, 102-6.

Claim: Nibley's claim that the names Pahoran, Mormon, and Deseret have Egyptian roots is faulty. Ashment, NABM, 344-45. Response: When first published thirty years ago, Nibley's theories were based on then-current scholarship. Gee, RBBM, 110-11.

Has Dr. Gee written more on this subject? He appears to be more cautious in his statements. Am I understanding him correctly? I'm curious as to the current scholarship on this issue.

Thanks,

cacheman

edited to add the url for the FARM's page

Dear cacheman,

Thank you for your response. Your concession that the statement by "Dr. Albright lends strength to the theory of ancient origins of the Book of Mormon" does you credit; not because I am sensing that you believe the Book of Mormon is necessarily true, but because of your obvious willingness to engage the evidence. I hope that I am equally as able to engage (or at least acknowledge) evidence that may challenge my views.

Dr. Gee may be more cautious in his statements than I, but I think that I have been quite cautious in my summation of Dr. Albright's letter and what it means. (Well, there is that "masses" thing I threw out, but that was hyperbole, and not associated with the content of the Albright letter.)

My feeling is that my conclusions from the Albright letter are modest and are propositions that all reasonable minds can agree with. You, being a reasonable person, have indicated that you are in agreement with those modest proposals.

Gervin, on the other hand, first sought to change the issue somewhat, and in response to my post has yet to come down on whether he agrees with my modest proposals.

Jaybear has only written that he thinks Albright to be "classy." While I agree with that assessment, I would like to hear from Jaybear what he thinks of the content of the letter itself, rather than his opinion of its author.

I would still like to hear from CKSalmon, as well. And if UTPhaedrus would like to weigh in on the content of the letter, too, I would be more than pleased to hear from him.

Heck, I'd be pleased to hear from just about anybody who wishes to discuss the content of the Albright letter rather than college football!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[urroner]

Okay, it is a new day, and I come back to this seminal thread only to find that not only have those who wanted to see the actual letter (Gervin excepted) fled the field, but that it has degenerated into a discussion of NCAA allegiances.

Oh, the shame of it all!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. to William Schryver--By complementing USU78, I did not mean to take away from your aid and assistance which made USU78's efforts at posting the image of the letter possible. You are the best! USU78 is only the second best!

All the best . . . to you both . . . just a little less to USU78.

--Consiglieri

Con-man, I love the letter and am really enjoying the amount of intellectual discussion going, though it might not be a lot right now.

BTW, other than USU and me being horses' patotties and the college stuff, the participants of this thread have be good, stand up people.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear has only written that he thinks Albright to be "classy." While I agree with that assessment, I would like to hear from Jaybear what he thinks of the content of the letter itself, rather than his opinion of its author.

Fair enough.

With the full text of the letter, its obvious that his stament "there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of Mormon..." was a statement made as an aside, without analysis or explanation and was not the central point of the letter. In legal terms, the statement would be called dicta. I don't know to what extent he looked into the matter, or simple gave Nibley the benefit of the doubt. Which is consistent with him having given JS the benefit of the doubt.

I would also note that his statement actually contradicts apologetics, which compares the the two Book of Mormon names he noted to similar purportedly actual egyptian names. If Pahoran really was an Egyptian name, why do the apologists compare it to another name that is close, but is spelled and sounds different.

I would also note that the letter is 40 years old, and there is no apparant followup letters, articles or the like by him on this subject. Is this the most recent letter from a nonLDS scholar that support's LDS apologetics on this issue.

In short, I don't see that that this letter adds a contribution to a discussion of the issue, as I don't know that anyone has challeged the assertion that there are some names in the book of mormon which bear some similarity to authentic egyptian names.

[cksalmon]

Dear CKS,

Thanks for your suggestion. Have you had a chance to view the letter itself now? What do you think? Do you find this at all impressive? I ask you this specific question because I know you are an open-minded individual always willing to accomodate new evidence and adjust your views accordingly, if need be.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'm still digesting it, frankly. I studied under a man who studied under Dever who studied under Albright. As such, I have a great deal of non-religious respect for Albright as an archaeologist.

More to come.

Best to you, bro.

CKS

[consiglieri]

With the full text of the letter, its obvious that his stament "there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of Mormon..." was a statement made as an aside, without analysis or explanation and was not the central point of the letter. In legal terms, the statement would be called dicta.

Dear Jaybear,

Thank you for the definition of "dicta." Having practiced law for 17-years and having argued my share of appeals, I am familiar with the term. I also know that, practically speaking, "dicta" is the term lawyers use for that part of a published opinion that hurts their case. The very fact that you label this part of the Albright letter "dicta" is therefore, in my view, a tacit admission on your part.

You mention that Dr. Albright provides no "analysis or explanation." They are "two Egyptian names," as Dr. Albright states. I am not sure what analysis or explanation is required. Are you suggesting that Dr. Albright was not competent enough in the field of ancient Egyptian names to not know one when he saw it? It is clear that, given his immense background in the relevant field, he considered the two names "Egyptian" and was "surprised" at their presence in the Book of Mormon.

I would also note that the letter is 40 years old, and there is no apparant followup letters, articles or the like by him on this subject. Is this the most recent letter from a nonLDS scholar that support's LDS apologetics on this issue.

As I mentioned, calling the offending passage "dicta" is a tacit admission, but when you begin to argue that the evidentiary value of the letter is somehow diminished by its being 40-years old, I sense you are straining for arguments. Paanch and Pahor were ancient Egyptian names 40-years ago. I doubt that, in the interim, they have somehow ceased being Egyptian names.

Your argument approaches desperation when you begin to complain that there are "no apparent follow up letters, articles or the like by him on the subject." What, pray tell, does that have to do with anything? I have provided (with the help of William Schryver) a photo copy of the original 1966 letter signed by Dr. Albright, which states exactly what I have represented it as saying. Now that you have the seen the actual letter, you want more in order to be satisfied? This leads me to conclude that you are arguing a case as an attorney, not evaluating evidence as a judge. If you are not satisfied with this letter, I feel certain you would not be satisfied with a follow up letter. It looks like you are searching for any reason you can lay hold on to reject the obvious evidence in the Albright letter you have now seen with your own eyes.

In short, I don't see that that this letter adds a contribution to a discussion of the issue, as I don't know that anyone has challeged the assertion that there are some names in the book of mormon which bear some similarity to authentic egyptian names.

Here I respectfully disagree with you again. This letter adds a substantial contribution to the discussion. It is one thing for apologists on both sides of the fence to banter back and forth over whether these names are Egyptian. It is another thing entirely for a world reknowned expert to weigh in on the matter with the opinion that they are, in fact, "two Egyptian names."

Cacheman was candid enough to make the following concession:

So, I would say that the statement by Dr. Albright lends strength to the theory of ancient origins of the Book of Mormon.

This is a fair and reasonable concession. What is it that compels you to refuse to say the same?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[maklelan]

With the full text of the letter, its obvious that his stament "there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor(an) which appear together in the Book of Mormon..." was a statement made as an aside, without analysis or explanation and was not the central point of the letter. In legal terms, the statement would be called dicta.

I'd likew to throw in my two cents. Adding on what consiglieri already said, the fact that the point is mentioned without argument or any kind of appeal to evidence to substantiate his statement makes it clear that it is beyond question. He doesn't say maybe, he doesn't say "I think." He says it like a person well acquainted with writing arguments that are picked apart at every turn. He states it matter-of-factly and knows no one will doubt it: "There are two Egyptian names..."

THe fact that the letter was never meant to be any kind of evidence for the Book of Mormon's ancient nature makes your argument about dicta irrelevant.

I would also note that his statement actually contradicts apologetics, which compares the the two Book of Mormon names he noted to similar purportedly actual egyptian names. If Pahoran really was an Egyptian name, why do the apologists compare it to another name that is close, but is spelled and sounds different.

Albright knows his stuff, and he could care less what laypeople think of his statement. He knows that variants like that really don't add up to much. Like I pointed out in another thread, Sheshonk, Shishak, Susink, Shashanq and Sheeshahk are all the same person. The Egyptians didn't even spell it the same all the time. They left the "n" out sometimes. Albright knows those little differences don't carry a lot of weight, so he doesn't bother making it an issue.

In short, I don't see that that this letter adds a contribution to a discussion of the issue, as I don't know that anyone has challeged the assertion that there are some names in the book of mormon which bear some similarity to authentic egyptian names.

Here's where you ignore what the evidence says. They do not "bear some similarity to authentic names." They are authentic names. A much greater authority than has ever been employed by any non-Mormon has established the authenticity of the names and he doesn't even feel there's a question about it.

[Matt Andrews]

So, just to be clear, what we have, out of the entire list of names that Her Amun was claiming were Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon, is two names.

Two names verified (in a private letter written in the 1960s) as "Egyptian names" by a biblical scholar (who was only "vaguely" an egyptologist).

And we have a quote from John Gee saying one (Paanchi) cannot be ruled out as a possibility, and another quote from Gee implying the other's (Pahoran's) Egyptian roots were faulty, though based on scholarship that was current at the time (thirty years ago).

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but this seems far from impressive.

[William Schryver]

consiglieri:

As I mentioned, calling the offending passage "dicta" is a tacit admission, but when you begin to argue that the evidentiary value of the letter is somehow diminished by its being 40-years old, I sense you are straining for arguments. Paanch and Pahor were ancient Egyptian names 40-years ago. I doubt that, in the interim, they have somehow ceased being Egyptian names.

Hear, hear!

I never cease to be amazed at some of the things die-hard critics come up with to argue against the obvious.

By the way, as a die-hard BYU football fan (GO COUGARS!), I think that I am more than willing to cede any credit, glory, or even a shopping spree at DI to my poor friend USU78 whose sad-sack football team would probably struggle against my local SUU Thunderbirds.

I'm sure the poor Aggie faithful can't wait until basketball season gets underway ...

[consiglieri]

So, just to be clear, what we have, out of the entire list of names that Her Amun was claiming were Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon, is two names.

Two names verified (in a private letter written in the 1960s) as "Egyptian names" by a biblical scholar (who was only "vaguely" an egyptologist).

And we have a quote from John Gee saying one (Paanchi) cannot be ruled out as a possibility, and another quote from Gee implying the other's (Pahoran's) Egyptian roots were faulty, though based on scholarship that was current at the time (thirty years ago).

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but this seems far from impressive.

Based upon the manner in which you have slanted, skewed and spun the evidence, it is little wonder that you find it "far from impressive."

"Far from impressive." What a wonderful phrase. It manages to sound simultaneously sniffy and pedantic.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jaybear]

Thank you for the definition of "dicta." Having practiced law for 17-years and having argued my share of appeals, I am familiar with the term. I also know that, practically speaking, "dicta" is the term lawyers use for that part of a published opinion that hurts their case.

As a seasoned litigator, I would expect that you also realize that, practically speaking that dicta is the term judges use, when they find find the authority you cite to be unpersuasive.

I seem to recall that you asked for my opinion.

The very fact that you label this part of the Albright letter "dicta" is therefore, in my view, a tacit admission on your part.

A tacit admission of what? If you are going to accuse me of being disengenuous, please be specific.

You mention that Dr. Albright provides no "analysis or explanation." They are "two Egyptian names," as Dr. Albright states. I am not sure what analysis or explanation is required.

For starters, its not clear why he referenced Paanch, which isn't a name in the Book of Mormon or why he put a paren in Pahor(an).

Are you suggesting that Dr. Albright was not competent enough in the field of ancient Egyptian names...

I made no suggestion.

As I mentioned, calling the offending passage "dicta" is a tacit admission, but when you begin to argue that the evidentiary value of the letter is somehow diminished by its being 40-years old, I sense you are straining for arguments.

Your veneer of civility is wearing thin.

The age of the letter is relevant for two reasons. First, if the letter were as significant as you claim, I would have expected some further comments on the point. Did anyone ask him to clarify, and did he. Did he find any other names worth noting. Obviously, this was not a serious issues in his mind. Second, I presume the study of a dead language would have progressed much farther in the last half century. Given, as you claim, the BoM is so closely tied to that language, I have to wonder why you have to go back 40 years to find support of a nonLDS egyptologist.

Paanch and Pahor were ancient Egyptian names 40-years ago.

Hmm, why didnt you say Panchi and Pahoran were ancient egyptian names. Would it be, because they are not, but are at best, closely related to Egyptian names.

If you are not satisfied with this letter, I feel certain you would not be satisfied with a follow up letter. It looks like you are searching for any reason you can lay hold on to reject the obvious evidence in the Albright letter you have now seen with your own eyes.

More insults to my intellectual integrity. Not cool.

Here I respectfully disagree with you again.

Sorry, but the tone of your response was anything but respectful.

[Olavarria]

THESE NAMES ARE ALL RELATED. Some are herew that went to other languages. Some are greek that went to other languages etc.

Pierre, Pedro,Petros,Pietro,Peter,Pers,

Jesus,Iosis,Yeshua,Jesu,Jesus,耶稣（yesu)

Joseph, Yosef, Yusuf, Joe, Jose,Josephine, 约斯（yue si)

Moses, Moshe, Moises，

Antonio, Anthony, Antonino,Tony

Johiachim, John, Juan, Jean, Johannes

Maria,Mariam,Mary

Eric, Euric, Eurico(mideval spanish visigothic king)

Rodrigo, Rodrick

Caesar, Cesar, Kaiser

Julio, Julius,Jules

But despite the fact that the BoM claims to be written in reformed egyptian, these BoM are not egyptian names

Pahoran, Pahor

Paanch, Paanchi

Nefri, Nefi,Noufi

Her-Amun, Helamen

Herihor, korihor

Hermounts, Hermonthis

Middoni, Mittani

Morianton, Meri Aten

Moriantum, Meri Atum

Manti, Montu

Pachus, Paks

Pacumeni, Pachumen

Zenefi,Sennefru

Zeezrom, Zoser

Himni, Hemen

Hem, Hem

Aha, Aha

Go Anti's, way to be objective!

[maklelan]

I've already explained that names are written and pronounced differently, but that evidence apparently went ignored or glossed over. Just for kicks and giggles:

Sheshonk or Sheshok is an Egyptian king (it's written either sh-sh-n-k or sh-sh-k, we have no clue about voweling ancient Egyptian, and they changed spellings arbitrarily and often), but in Hebrew it's Sheeshahk. We now pronounce it Shishak. It's Susink to Mesopotamia and Shashanq to Josephus. Shoot, Weni and Unas are the exact same person, and these two names are derived from the same spelling of the name. If variants mean anything at all (and your argument rest on the fact that they are very significant) then please explain why these variants are occuring in the name of one individual. If you have the vast comprehehnsion of the Egyptian language and its morphology that you claim you do, then tell me why these variants take place.

If y'all are unfamiliar with this guy or the different spellings of his name then you don't have any reason at all to be sharing your opinion, but if you are familiar with them then you know that you don't need to have an exact match. Yes, it does increase the odds of coincidence, but with so many matches, and with the corroboration of a dude who knew a lot more about Egyptian than any of you will ever know, I can't fathom how a reasonably well-informed student of the Ancient Near East can call this anything but compelling. That there are people doing it shows how little they really understand this kind of philology. Albright is one of the greatest biblical scholar that ever lived, he was positive the Book of Mormon was false, and it wasn't even a question for him. That you guys are sittin' there going, "Yeah, but the differences are significant" in light of that is utterly ludicrous. You're not Egyptologists and you're not near as qualified as Albright to even weigh in. The ones weighing in on our side have studied this stuff at fairly great length to extremely great length. The least y'all could do is address the evidence. Anyone in the world can say "I'm not convinced" about anything they want, but if that's your only argument you're way outta your league. Put up or shut up.

[weaverl]

Egyptian Kings?

[maklelan]

WAS an Egyptian king. Sorry.