The Full Text Of The William Albright Letter

[Matt Andrews]

Consiglieri:

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."

I'm sorry if I offended you, but honestly, if you could tell me what it is I've misunderstood, I'd be happy to know.

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

I wasn't trying for either sniffy or pedantic. I'm genuinely having a hard time seeing what is impressive about this two name list, neither of which seem very convincing, even to pro-mormon egyptologist John Gee. Again, perhaps I've misunderstood. (At least one of us has, and I'm willing to admit it might be me.)

[Olavarria]

bumpers

[consiglieri]

Consiglieri:

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."

I'm sorry if I offended you, but honestly, if you could tell me what it is I've misunderstood, I'd be happy to know.

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

I wasn't trying for either sniffy or pedantic. I'm genuinely having a hard time seeing what is impressive about this two name list, neither of which seem very convincing, even to pro-mormon egyptologist John Gee. Again, perhaps I've misunderstood. (At least one of us has, and I'm willing to admit it might be me.)

Dear Matt,

You have not offended me in the least. It takes a lot more than a discussion of issues to offend me. I am not that thin-skinned!

I think that it is nothing that either of us misunderstands. If you find the Albright letter "unimpressive," that is your assessment of the evidentiary value of the letter. I think it is clear, however, that William F. Albright found the presence of "two Egyptian names" in the Book of Mormon to be "surprising," not "unimpressive." If Albright had considered it merely "unimpressive," I do not imagine he would say he was "surprised" to find them. From this, I wean that Albright was more than "unimpressed."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Jaybear:

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.

As a "seasoned litigator," I have the background to make a reasonably informed decision that the Albright letter is of evidentiary value in the case of whether the Book of Mormon is ancient. As a "seasoned litigator," I am also aware that the rules of evidence provide for expert opinions on matters at issue. Evidentiary Rule 702 provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

There is no doubt that Wiliam F. Albright would qualify under the most exacting standards as an expert witness. He has gone on record as giving his expert opinion that the Book of Mormon contains "two Egyptian names." Albright's expert opinion in this regard "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence." Hence, his letter becomes important to the discussion of whether the Book of Mormon is ancient. Also of importance in the Albright letter is that he admits Joseph Smith would not have had access to these ancient Egyptian names at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, which also would have been before Joseph Smith made any known attempts to study ancient languages.

Jaybear:

I seem to recall that you asked for my opinion.

I did ask for your opinion, and I thank you for sharing your opinion. I did not mean to imply, however, that I would accept your opinion uncritically.

Jaybear:

Your veneer of civility is wearing thin.

You are not the first person to make this observation. I will put on another coat and try again, but I think that in this discussion, I am not the one who is getting a "shellacking."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jaybear]

There is no doubt that Wiliam F. Albright would qualify under the most exacting standards as an expert witness. He has gone on record as giving his expert opinion that the Book of Mormon contains "two Egyptian names." Albright's expert opinion in this regard "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence." Hence, his letter becomes important to the discussion of whether the Book of Mormon is ancient. Also of importance in the Albright letter is that he admits Joseph Smith would not have had access to these ancient Egyptian names at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, which also would have been before Joseph Smith made any known attempts to study ancient languages.

No doubt, he would be an expert, if the trial were held 40 years ago. Today, I am not so sure. Of course, this is a moot point, since you already concluded in your own mind that reference to the age of the letter is a red herring on my part.

As for his testimony, that would certainly be most helpful. Then he could explain, why the two names he mentioned (Paanch and Pahor) are not in the book of mormon. I suspect that this might have to do with the fact that he probably never read the book of mormon, and was relying on his mormon peers for foundational facts. Additionally, and he could explain his methodology for concluding how a name that isn't eyptian, but sounds egyptian is egyptian. I suspect he would testify that its the natural and expected result of translating an egyptian name to nephite then to refromed egyptian, and then finally to KJV english.

You are not the first person to make this observation. I will put on another coat and try again, but I think that in this discussion, I am not the one who is getting a "shellacking."

I see that boasting as well as insults, are part of your rhetorical skillset. If you were new attorney, I would advise you to drop the cheapshots.

[consiglieri]

Jaybear:

No doubt, he would be an expert, if the trial were held 40 years ago.

William F. Albright is a scholar of sufficient expertise and reknown that I think he would qualify as an expert even today. Or, if you would rather, we could just hold a hypothetical trial 40-years ago (since this is all rather hypothetical anyway). I would be satisfied with the world's leading expert in Near Eastern studies in a trial in 1966 testifying to the presence of "two Egyptian names" in the Book of Mormon.

Jaybear:

As for his testimony, that would certainly be most helpful. Then he could explain, why the two names he mentioned (Paanch and Pahor) are not in the book of mormon.

I want to make clear that I understand your argument, being that Paanch (an Egyptian name) is not identical to the Book of Mormon Paanchi; and that Pahor (an Egyptian name) is not identical to the Book of Mormon Pahoran. With that concession, it also appears that at least with the name Pahor, Albright was aware that the full rendering of the name in the Book of Mormon was Pahor(an), as he adds the last two letters in parentheses in his letter. Nevertheless, Albright considered this to be an Egyptian name in the Book of Mormon and expressed surprise over its presence there. Paanchi is even more remarkable to me, personally, as it contains a double-a, and such a construct would have been completely foreign to Joseph Smith as an English speaker. Yet it is right at home in Egyptian, in such names as Ma'at, and more specifically in such names as Paanch.

Jaybear:

I suspect that this might have to do with the fact that he probably never read the book of mormon, and was relying on his mormon peers for foundational facts.

While I too have little doubt that Albright never read the Book of Mormon, and he was no doubt relying on Hugh Nibley (a peer) in bringing the presence of these names to his attention, I think it highly unlikely that Albright would substitute even a peer's judgment for his own on the question of whether these are Egyptian names. In other words, would the world's foremost expert in Near Eastern studies mindlessly repeat the opinion of even a peer on such a basic question? I note Albright does not attribute the observation of the presence of Egyptian names to a peer, but claims it as his own opinion, and registers surprise over it. This indicates that, regardless of whether this unusual state of things was brought to his attention by a peer, it was also Albright's opinion that these were "two Egyptian names" in the Book of Mormon, and that is really the whole point.

Jaybear:

Additionally, and he could explain his methodology for concluding how a name that isn't eyptian, but sounds egyptian is egyptian. I suspect he would testify that its the natural and expected result of translating an egyptian name to nephite then to refromed egyptian, and then finally to KJV english.

Ouch. I guess I'm not the only one who is good at "cheapshots." Oh well, I started it, and I can stand the heat, so I won't be getting out of the kitchen anytime soon. Welcome to the club! I think it more likely Albright would explain the added suffixes to Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon as a natural and expected result of their adoption into the language of a non-Egyptian culture. But I suppose we will never know precisely what Albright would have said on this issue, unless you are particularly adept at the use of the ouija board.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cacheman]

Paanchi is even more remarkable to me, personally, as it contains a double-a, and such a construct would have been completely foreign to Joseph Smith as an English speaker. Yet it is right at home in Egyptian, in such names as Ma'at, and more specifically in such names as Paanch.

It is pretty interesting, and an evidence of ancient origins, but the double-a construct may not have been completely foreign to someone who read the Bible:

Genesis 41:45 And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnath-paaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Poti-pherah priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt.

cacheman

[consiglieri]

Thanks for bringing that reference to my attention, cacheman. I was wondering if there would be an example of a double-a in the Bible, and there is. I note that it is in the context of an Egyptian name being given Joseph by a Pharoah, so at least it is being used in the Bible in the culture and language to which Albright ascribes the name Paanch.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[USU78]

Egyptian, like Hebrew, is not written with vowels . . . a couple of exceptions exist for Hebrew (I don't know enough about Egyptian to allow for exceptions, but I expect such exist). Accordingly, we can never be entirely sure how something is pronounced in the ancient version of either language (the vowel points for Hebrew are a fairly recent innovation . . . and no pointing system exists for Egyptian).

Thus the ancient Egyptian name Paanch, which would be written [p'nx*] could be pronounced either as conventionally written Paanch, pronounced with a schwa before the glottal stop separating the two "a's," or could have some other vowel, , [e], [o] before the glottal stop. What happens at the end of the word may be accounted for by various things . . . too numerous to get into, and all of which would be purest speculation.

I suggest the final [ i ] in the BoM name is probably a genetive ending (as Nibley speculated), causing the name to refer to being "of" or "from" a particular place: e.g. Moroni being the one "of" or "from" Moron; Paanchi being the one "of" or "from" Paanch. If you know any Latin, the presence of endings to names which change based upon how the name is used in a sentence, at first confusing, can lend great clarity to discourse. The Latin name of the Master, Jesus Christus, for example, also appears Jesum Christum, Jesu Christi, Jesu Christo, etc. Thus, having a final [ i ] at the end of Paanch may be accounted for in at least a couple of ways. We don't have to decide: all we need to know, like Albright, is that the consontants line up properly.

USU "*I assume that ch is the voiceless fricative and not the stop" 78

[maklelan]

Additionally, and he could explain his methodology for concluding how a name that isn't eyptian, but sounds egyptian is egyptian.

I wonder what credentials you have to be able to decide that this name is unequivocally not Egyptian. Your observation makes it clear that it is not an identical transliteration as the one you are familiar with, but that means nothing to someone who actually knows Egyptian. Like I said earlier (and everyone was too timid to approach it, apparently) Unas and Weni are the exact same Egyptian name. They are spelled exactly the same way in Hieroglyphic and they refer to the same person. Sheshonk, Shishak, Shashanq, Susink and Sheeshahk are all the same person as well. The difference is that one person transliterated it differently than another. All these names are perfectly legitimate and respected by scholars. Do you know why? Because we're not exactly sure about the vowels or the rendering of all the consonants, and they were not always consistent with their spelling. Albright knew that, which is why he recognizes Paanchi and Pahoran as names. You do not know it, which is why you persist in this hopeless crusade about how, according to your transcendent understanding of proper transliteration of Ancient Egyptian, they are not Egyptian names. Actual scholarship says you are wrong and out of your league, but you persist. What say you in defense of your assertion?

[Nevo]

I think it is clear, however, that William F. Albright found the presence of "two Egyptian names" in the Book of Mormon to be "surprising," not "unimpressive." If Albright had considered it merely "unimpressive," I do not imagine he would say he was "surprised" to find them. From this, I wean that Albright was more than "unimpressed."

Whether or not Albright was impressed by the presence of two Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon, he evidently didn't consider it compelling evidence of an ancient origin. As his letter makes clear, he believed Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon. I think that is worth noting if you're going to use Albright as your star witness.

[USU78]

Whether or not Albright was impressed by the presence of two Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon, he evidently didn't consider it compelling evidence of an ancient origin. As his letter makes clear, he believed Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon. I think that is worth noting if you're going to use Albright as your star witness.

Why do we need "compelling" evidence? Apologists only need to get over the plausibility hurdle, and such hits as Albright provided help get us to plausibility.

If you need "compelling," you aren't in the faith business anyway. Faith ain't about "compelling."

[Nevo]

Why do we need "compelling" evidence? Apologists only need to get over the plausibility hurdle, and such hits as Albright provided help get us to plausibility.

If you need "compelling," you aren't in the faith business anyway. Faith ain't about "compelling."

You're right. I should have said "persuasive" or "convincing".

[USU78]

You're right. I should have said "persuasive" or "convincing".

Which get us into subjectivity land, unlike "compelling," which implies a person must believe based upon the evidence presented. My inner life of faith may compel my actions, but evidences presented in support of or tending to rebut matters of faith perforce cannot compel faith.

[Alf O'Mega]

Paanchi is even more remarkable to me, personally, as it contains a double-a, and such a construct would have been completely foreign to Joseph Smith as an English speaker.

You're right. Names like Isaac and Aaron were completely unknown in Joseph Smith's time.

[consiglieri]

You're right. Names like Isaac and Aaron were completely unknown in Joseph Smith's time.

Double-ouch, Alf! I will have to modify my surprise, limiting it to double-a usage which pronounced both a's separately.

Good point!

May I ask your opinion as to what you make of the Albright letter as it relates to the presence of authentic ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon? As you may note from my exchange with Jaybear, however, such positing of your opinion is not without its perils.

"I do so relish these times of peril."

--Consiglieri

[Jaybear]

I wonder what credentials you have to be able to decide that this name is unequivocally not Egyptian. Your observation makes it clear that it is not an identical transliteration as the one you are familiar with, but that means nothing to someone who actually knows Egyptian. .... Actual scholarship says you are wrong and out of your league, but you persist. What say you in defense of your assertion?

Et tu?

Please show me where I have said that the name is "unequivocally not Egyptian."

I accept the premise the Pahor is an Egyptian name, what I have not seen is the reasoning, methodology or analysis that would lead Albright, an Egyptian scholar to conclude that Pahoran, not just Pahor, is also an Egyptian name? That analysis is the "actual scholarship" that is missing from the Albright letter.

For example as Consiglieri suggests:

I think it more likely Albright would explain the added suffixes to Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon as a natural and expected result of their adoption into the language of a non-Egyptian culture.

Consiglieri may be correct, in that perhaps that is what Albright had in mind. As it is, we don't know how or why, (and perhaps even if) Ablright reached his conclusion.

That is my point, period. I am not disputing any "scholarship." I am simply waiting for some evidence that Albright's statement is the product of scholarship.

Frankly, I am skeptical that there is a scholar out there that would say anything other that "Pahoron COULD be a name derived from the Egyptian name Pahor."

Bring me one NonLDS egyptian scholar that will step forward with his opinion that Paharon is an authentic egyptian name, AND with his explanation as to how he reached that conclusion, and you win the debate. I will concede that Paharon is "unequivocally" an authentic egyptian name.

I await your evidence.

[consiglieri]

Dear Jaybear,

I appreciate your response to the last post which was admittedly not mine. I hear what you are saying about Pahor(an).

What about Paanch(i)? Are you more flexible in your ability to accept Paanch(i) as an authentic Egyptian name? Or do you want to attach the same preconditions to Paanch(i) as you do for Pahor(an)?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jaybear]

Dear Jaybear,

I appreciate your response to the last post which was admittedly not mine. I hear what you are saying about Pahor(an).

What about Paanch(i)? Are you more flexible in your ability to accept Paanch(i) as an authentic Egyptian name? Or do you want to attach the same preconditions to Paanch(i) as you do for Pahor(an)?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I don't think I am inflexible in any respect. I simple hold that the is an important distinction between asserting that Paanchi (1) is an authentic egyptian name, and (2) is closely related to and therefore arguably could be derived from an authentic egyptian name.

I don't have any problem with your assertion of the latter, and Albright's letter does not support the former.

Btw, how do you know how the "aa" in Paanchi was pronounced? I was under the impression that the words appeared in writting on a stone in JS's hat.

[Alf O'Mega]

Double-ouch, Alf! I will have to modify my surprise, limiting it to double-a usage which pronounced both a's separately.

How do you know that the two a's of Paanchi were pronounced separately, either by Joseph Smith or by any ancients he may have channeled?

Also, don't forget that New York was originally settled by the Dutch, who contributed both lingusitically and genetically to the culture of the New York frontier. (And the Egyptians would have been creamed by the Dutch in a vowel-doubling matchâ??soon to be sanctioned as an exhibition Olympic event!)

May I ask your opinion as to what you make of the Albright letter as it relates to the presence of authentic ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon?

I heartily echo his closing paragraph:

I do not for a moment believe that Joseph Smith was trying to mislead anyone; I accept the point of view of a Jewish friend of mine at the University of Utah, that he was a religious genius and that he was quite honest in believing that he really could decipher these ancient texts. But to insist that he did is really doing a disservice to the cause of a great church and its gifted founder.

Dr. Albright wasn't convinced that the Book of Mormon was an ancient historical document, and neither am I.

Incidentally, it seems likely that his Jewish friend at the U was Louis C. Zucker, whose article "Joseph Smith as a Student of Hebrew" appeared in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3:2 (summer 1968), 41â??55.

[maklelan]

Et tu?

Please show me where I have said that the name is "unequivocally not Egyptian."

Using the same dicta you so proudly touted out earlier, you mentioned that the names are "not Egyptian". I quoted you immediately prior to making my statement, and I put the part where you said that in bold letters to avoid your asking me to point it out. You said they are not Egyptian, period. I believe that in your mind it is unequivical. If you have to admit they are real your entire perception of the Book of Mormon has to be reshaped, and you're probably not that commited to this board.

I accept the premise the Pahor is an Egyptian name, what I have not seen is the reasoning, methodology or analysis that would lead Albright, an Egyptian scholar to conclude that Pahoran, not just Pahor, is also an Egyptian name? That analysis is the "actual scholarship" that is missing from the Albright letter.

So you concoct this call for references that you know can never be produced. His authority notwithstanding, you doubt his ability to reach a conclusion. You call his ability to recognize Egyptian into question as if yours is at all adequate to maintain this silly straw man.

For example as Consiglieri suggests:

Consiglieri may be correct, in that perhaps that is what Albright had in mind. As it is, we don't know how or why, (and perhaps even if) Ablright reached his conclusion.

That is my point, period. I am not disputing any "scholarship." I am simply waiting for some evidence that Albright's statement is the product of scholarship.

And you know it cannot be produced, so you win. Albright's thought proccess more than likely went like this: "Pahoran and Paanchi. Those are Egyptian. Odd." What steps in here require your approval? Since when is a legendary scholar beholden to someone with no clue how Egyptian works? You wouldn't know what to do with the evidence once you got it anyway. Point of fact, you never did address my examples of how Egyptian names are spelled differently among Egyptians themselves, but more frequently when it comes to the subjective art of transliteration.

Frankly, I am skeptical that there is a scholar out there that would say anything other that "Pahoron COULD be a name derived from the Egyptian name Pahor."

And yet one of the greatest biblical scholars of all time has frustrated your skepticism. What does that do for your skepticism? It turns it into what every dogmatic person experiences when they know they're on the losing end of a fight. They make up some silly little trick to try to make it appear as if they have a firmer grasp on the subject than they could ever possibly hope to.

Bring me one NonLDS egyptian scholar that will step forward with his opinion that Paharon is an authentic egyptian name, AND with his explanation as to how he reached that conclusion, and you win the debate. I will concede that Paharon is "unequivocally" an authentic egyptian name.

First you wanted to know the letter was real, and now you demand to know by what thought proccess the conclusion came about because your understanding of Egyptian makes it clear there is a complicated proccess that must have existed here that is not represented. This is a joke. You'd never concede this.

I await your evidence.

You still haven't responded to mine.

[cksalmon]

Just checking in, here.

Has someone covered this already?

It seems Albright concedes, at the very least, that the BoM examples are Egyptian-like. He seems to make a stronger statement that this, however.

But, at any rate, he also seems to assume that JS obtained these Egyptian names in some natural fashion--e.g., consulting outdated lexicons, trying to learn languages, etc. That's the way I read him, anyway.

So, what's the state of the evidence re: JS's potentially having consulted some source(s) from which he may have cribbed these Egyptian-like roots? Yea? Nay?

I think that would be the next logical question.

Best to all.

CKS

[maklelan]

I will provide for everyone (for the third time) an explanation of how one can decide that these two names are Egyptian despite being off by a letter or two; specifically, how Dr. Albright can presume to make such an audacious conclusion without extensive footnotes or even a bibliography. I will do so by providing (again) several examples of Egyptian names that are manifested with variant spellings and transliterations.

Sheshonk, Shishak, Susink, Shashanq, and Sheeshahk are all English transliterations of one person's name. The name in Hieroglyphic is spelled two different ways: sh-sh-n-k and sh-sh-k. The vowels are anybody's guess.

Unas and Weni are English transliterations of one person's name. In Hieroglyphic it is spelled Wnjs.

Some names that appear with no final "i" and do have them in other places:

Hor-Hori

Nakht-Nahkti

Pahor-Pahori

Hotep-Hetepi

Nefer-Neferi

Often a suffiz will be reduced to an "i":

Anen-Ani

Hunefer-Hui

Ipuwer-Ipui

Khufu-Khui

Wenamun-Weni

Djedefor-Djedi

Hapu-Hapi

Onuris-Oni

Rashida-Rashidi

As a side-note. Everyone here seems to agree that Paanch is a legitimate Egyptian name. Please show me where it is attested as an Egyptian name.

[cksalmon]

As a side-note. Everyone here seems to agree that Paanch is a legitimate Egyptian name. Please show me where it is attested as an Egyptian name.

Yes, please.

CKS

[maklelan]

Is this rather difficult ot establish, or is everyone having FHE?