The Full Text Of The William Albright Letter

[consiglieri]

Dear CKS,

I return from a whirlwind tour of the web with some interesting results:

First, a great deal of time has been spent on this thread discussing the difference between Paanchi (Book of Mormon) and Paanch (Albright letter). Some have stated that Paanch is only similar to Book of Mormon Paanchi, and therefore not a truly authentic Egyptian name, but only similar to an Egyptian name.

My research, I think changes all that, because it turns out that an ancient authentic Egyptian name from the 8th century B.C.E. is attested as Piankhi.

The following is from the website www.narmer.pl/dyn/25en.htm, which provides the transliteration of the name Piankhi to the King of Napata, son and successor of Kashta.

Not only that, but it gives the time Piankhi lived as being in the 8th century B.C.E., sufficiently in advance of 600 B.C.E. for its presence to be accounted for in the Book of Mormon.

The website goes on to give this information regarding Piankhi:

King of Napata, son and successor of Kashta. Came into possession of Upper Egypt and founded the XXV Egyptian Dynasty, named also Kushite or Napata Dynasty. After Tefnakhtâ??s expedition he defeated Nimlot, the Tefnakhtâ??s ally, crushed fleet of the Egyptian king and conquered Hermopolis. Coalition of northern kings, organized against Kushite king, apart from Tefnakht and Nimlot from Hermopolis included also prince Osorkon IV, Iupet II and Sheshonq V. Piankhi accepted tribute from all princes after defeating their garrisons in main cities, including Memphis. After religious celebrations in temple of Ptah at Memphis and Atum at Heliopolis, he returned to Napata from where he ruled over Egypt. Burial place â?? pyramid at el-Kurru.

It is my opinion that, in the case of Paanchi/Piankhi, we are not dealing with a name that is merely similar to an authentic ancient Egyptian name; rather it is, in fact, an authentic attested ancient Egyptian name.

My question is, what is it doing in the Book of Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[USU78]

It is my opinion that, in the case of Paanchi/Piankhi, we are not dealing with a name that is merely similar to an authentic ancient Egyptian name; rather it is, in fact, an authentic attested ancient Egyptian name.

My question is, what is it doing in the Book of Mormon?

Got out my German BoM to check something.

Sure enough, Paanchi is spelled Paankhi in the German translation (pronounced [pa'nxi]).

[maklelan]

Dear CKS,

I return from a whirlwind tour of the web with some interesting results:

First, a great deal of time has been spent on this thread discussing the difference between Paanchi (Book of Mormon) and Paanch (Albright letter). Some have stated that Paanch is only similar to Book of Mormon Paanchi, and therefore not a truly authentic Egyptian name, but only similar to an Egyptian name.

My research, I think changes all that, because it turns out that an ancient authentic Egyptian name from the 8th century B.C.E. is attested as Piankhi.

The following is from the website www.narmer.pl/dyn/25en.htm, which provides the transliteration of the name Piankhi to the King of Napata, son and successor of Kashta.

Not only that, but it gives the time Piankhi lived as being in the 8th century B.C.E., sufficiently in advance of 600 B.C.E. for its presence to be accounted for in the Book of Mormon.

The website goes on to give this information regarding Piankhi:

King of Napata, son and successor of Kashta. Came into possession of Upper Egypt and founded the XXV Egyptian Dynasty, named also Kushite or Napata Dynasty. After Tefnakhtâ??s expedition he defeated Nimlot, the Tefnakhtâ??s ally, crushed fleet of the Egyptian king and conquered Hermopolis. Coalition of northern kings, organized against Kushite king, apart from Tefnakht and Nimlot from Hermopolis included also prince Osorkon IV, Iupet II and Sheshonq V. Piankhi accepted tribute from all princes after defeating their garrisons in main cities, including Memphis. After religious celebrations in temple of Ptah at Memphis and Atum at Heliopolis, he returned to Napata from where he ruled over Egypt. Burial place â?? pyramid at el-Kurru.

It is my opinion that, in the case of Paanchi/Piankhi, we are not dealing with a name that is merely similar to an authentic ancient Egyptian name; rather it is, in fact, an authentic attested ancient Egyptian name.

My question is, what is it doing in the Book of Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This has to do with my question about where Paanch is, because I've never seen it, but I have seen Piankh and Piankhi. You stole my thunder, but that's ok. The "kh" is a transliteration that is often rendered "ch." You can really use either one, the pronunciation is the same. Albright recognized that Paanch is just a different transliteration of Piankh. The difference between the Egyptian name as it was spelled by scholars and as it is represented in the Book of Mormon is actually more than one letter, but, as I have been explaining, people who know anything at all about Egyptian transliterations don't recognize that as a legitimate argument against the comparison of names.

Now that the facts are on the table, what say the skeptics?

[consiglieri]

I, for one, will be interested in hearing what the "skeptics" say regarding the fact that a common non-LDS transliteration of the name includes the "i" suffix . . . exactly the same as the Book of Mormon transliteration.

What say you?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cksalmon]

I, for one, will be interested in hearing what the "skeptics" say regarding the fact that a common non-LDS transliteration of the name includes the "i" suffix . . . exactly the same as the Book of Mormon transliteration.

What say you?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hey Consig--

I say we upgrade it to legit.

CKS

[consiglieri]

Hey Consig--

I say we upgrade it to legit.

CKS

Be still my beating heart! I feel like a modern-day Diogenes going about through the streets of Athens with a lantern in the middle of the day searching for an honest man.

And behold, I have found one.

And his name is CKSalmon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[urroner]

Be still my beating heart! I feel like a modern-day Diogenes going about through the streets of Athens with a lantern in the middle of the day searching for an honest man.

And behold, I have found one.

And his name is CKSalmon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

pssst Consig, just between you and me, you do realize that CKS ain't no Mormon. You can't praise them non-Mormon type too much else they will start thinking they as good as we are, or worse, better than us. Yes, I know that you have to occasionaly throw them a bone, but be sure to whack them afterwards with that bone or they start expecting us to treat them like they're human or something.

But honestly, CKS, that was great.

[cksalmon]

Well, don't get too gushy on me, you two.

I'm still wondering about this:

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

And, Consig, can you provide a link to the website?

Best!

CKS

[maklelan]

Where have all the detractors gone? Are they gathering research to commit to one final push, or do they figure if they just ignore it we'll stop talking about it and their conviction about the fraudulent nature of the Book of Mormon will squeek through unscathed? There's a saying: He who will not subject his ideas to a frank and open discussion about their validity loves his opinion more than the truth. With the notable exception of CK, and unless the former is the situation, it seems we have a lot of non-Mormons on this board more concerned about their opinion than the truth. And we're the ones trapped inside our blind faith...

[cacheman]

Where have all the detractors gone? Are they gathering research to commit to one final push, or do they figure if they just ignore it we'll stop talking about it and their conviction about the fraudulent nature of the Book of Mormon will squeek through unscathed? There's a saying: He who will not subject his ideas to a frank and open discussion about their validity loves his opinion more than the truth. With the notable exception of CK, and unless the former is the situation, it seems we have a lot of non-Mormons on this board more concerned about their opinion than the truth. And we're the ones trapped inside our blind faith...

More hyperbole I guess......

Haven't many of the non-mormons on this thread and the previous "Egyptian names" thread agreed that this constitutes evidence for ancient origins? The problem becomes when their perception of how strong the evidence differs from yours. What I see from some on this thread is a rush to seize the evidence that favors their position, while neglecting the other evidence. I see this on both sides by the way. Some automatically argue that the evidence is very weak, but I'm not convinced by their counter-evidence or claims of mere coincidence. Others seemingly ignore other possiblities such as those expressed by Ashment, or the ability to see that having the name part of "paan" in the Bible as an egyptian name could possibly weaken the evidence.

After reading the statements by Dr. Gee, I am interested in hearing about how this evidence is viewed by modern scholarship. As I said earlier, he appeared to be more cautious in his assessment of this evidence. I emailed Dr. Gee about this a week ago, but haven't heard back. I imagine that he is too busy to answer inquiries from every stranger, but it would be interesting to hear his perspective clarified.

It was also stated that "a number of non-mormon scholars" thought that this was evidence that deserved investigation. Is this true? Have other scholars engaged this evidence or commented on it? I'm especially interested in the opinions of trained egyptologists, no matter their religious preference. I know I've asked it once on this thread, but for some reason it wasn't answered.

I feel that this is one of the stronger evidences for ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. I don't have an answer, but feel that mere coincidence is less likely than not. Other strong evidences that I don't have answers for are the presence of "sheum" in the Book of Mormon in its context, and the presence of Mahujah in the Book of Abraham, but those are for another thread.

cacheman

[cacheman]

Dr. Tvedtnes refers to a letter "in which he [Dr. Albright] explained that he was a Protestant, and hence not a believer in the Book of Mormon". I didn't see any reference to Dr. Albright's religion in the letter posted on this thread. Does that imply that there was perhaps more correspondance than we are aware of? Maybe not, but it would be real cool if there was another letter on the subject lying around somewhere.

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/HebrewNames.pdf

cacheman

edited to clarify that "he" was referring to Dr. Albright

[consiglieri]

Well, don't get too gushy on me, you two.

I'm still wondering about this:

And, Consig, can you provide a link to the website?

Best!

CKS

As computer illiterate as I have already proven myself to be, I will nevertheless attempt to comply with your request for a link to the website by typing it below. If something else is needed, please let me know. I am envious of those who know how to post links.

http//www.narmer.pl/dyn/25en.htm

Let's see if that works.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Edit: Well, I've looked at the post and the web address doesn't post as a link. Okay, I am the worst. But if you plug that into your address bar, you should have success.

[consiglieri]

CKS:

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.

I didn't want to leave this question unaddressed. My reading of the Albright letter indicates a concession that Egyptian was in its infancy at the time Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon. I do not have any specific information as to the exact date the Egyptian names Piankhi and Pahor(an) were discovered and brought to light in the western world in modern times, nor what publications they might have been available in if known in 1829, nor where any such publications would have been reposited in the United States. Perhaps somebody else could help out with that? It is, I agree, the next logical question.

I will see what I can find on the internet, but am not expecting a lot. Remember how computer savvy I am!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

cacheman:

After reading the statements by Dr. Gee, I am interested in hearing about how this evidence is viewed by modern scholarship. As I said earlier, he appeared to be more cautious in his assessment of this evidence. I emailed Dr. Gee about this a week ago, but haven't heard back. I imagine that he is too busy to answer inquiries from every stranger, but it would be interesting to hear his perspective clarified.

I, too, would be interested in hearing anything that Dr. Gee might communicate to you. My reading of Dr. Gee's statements is that he is more cautious, but I attribute that to the fact that he is LDS and probably feels the need to be more cautious in his published writings, inasmuch as he automatically has a dog in this fight. I think his being cautious in this regard is appropriate.

cacheman:

It was also stated that "a number of non-mormon scholars" thought that this was evidence that deserved investigation. Is this true? Have other scholars engaged this evidence or commented on it? I'm especially interested in the opinions of trained egyptologists, no matter their religious preference. I know I've asked it once on this thread, but for some reason it wasn't answered.

I think I am the one who brought up this subject, and doubtless did it inartfully. I am not personally aware of other non-LDS Egyptologists other than Albright who have weighed in on this particular issue. What I meant when I mentioned other non-LDS scholars were those who have gone on record as seeing connections between the Book of Mormon and the ancient world; such as Margaret Barker. Sorry for the confusion on that.

cacheman:

I feel that this is one of the stronger evidences for ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. I don't have an answer, but feel that mere coincidence is less likely than not. Other strong evidences that I don't have answers for are the presence of "sheum" in the Book of Mormon in its context, and the presence of Mahujah in the Book of Abraham, but those are for another thread.

I appreciate your willingness to make this statement, and I agree with your opinion that this is one of the stronger evidences for ancient origins of the Book of Mormon, and that "mere coincidence is less likely than not."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cacheman]

Looks like we double posted as i was trying to bump the topic.

cacheman

[consiglieri]

CKSalmon:

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.

Dear CKS,

I did a brief search and located the following at the FARMS website. The cite is from a Nibley publication and places the discovery of the Egyptian name Paanchi/Piankhi at the end of the nineteenth century, long after the Book of Mormon came off the press in 1830.

"Paanchi, the son of Pahoran, and pretender to the chief-judgeship, has the same name as one of the best-known kings in Egyptian history, a contemporary of Isaiah and chief actor in the drama of Egyptian history at a time in which the history was intimately involved in the affairs of Palestine. Yet his name, not mentioned in the Bible, remained unknown to scholars until the end of the nineteenth century." Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch, 3rd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 283-84.

If the name Paanchi/Piankhi is an authentic Egyptian name (which it appears to be), and if the name Paanchi/Piankhi was the name of a famous Egyptian king who predated the Book of Mormon (which it appears to be), and if there was no way that Joseph Smith could have "cribbed" this name from another source (as it appears to be), we are left with the $64 question:

"What are we to make of the fact that this authentic ancient Egyptian name appears in a book published in 1830 which claims to have roots in ancient Egyptian culture?"

I think it is this kind of factual and historical scenario that makes this piece of evidence more and more persuasive in indicating the Book of Mormon is an ancient record.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Gervin]

I did a quick internet search of this "one of the best-known" kings of Egypt:

Most references point to Piye as being the first ruler of the 25th Dynasty. Obviously, different references refer to him under different names. It is belived he ruled Kush (Nubia) from about 750 to 719 BC. Piankhi was his birth name. But in various references, we see his birth name referred to as Piankhy, Piye, Piy and Piyi. However, some references point out that his true name was Piye, and that this was wrongly read as Piankhi. His Throne Name was Men-kheper-re (meaning "The Manifestation of Re Abides"). But this name too will vary, being also spelled Menkheperra. Of course, this king, as most others, had several other names which are not generally provided.

I believe that facts about Egypt and Egyptology have the effect of actually disproving the Book of Mormon as an ancient record.

[urroner]

As computer illiterate as I have already proven myself to be, I will nevertheless attempt to comply with your request for a link to the website by typing it below. If something else is needed, please let me know. I am envious of those who know how to post links.

http//www.narmer.pl/dyn/25en.htm

Let's see if that works.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Edit: Well, I've looked at the post and the web address doesn't post as a link. Okay, I am the worst. But if you plug that into your address bar, you should have success.

Man, what a dweeb you are!!!! You left out a colon in the address. Bummer man!! (Did you catch the pun - colon...Bummer). ha ha ha ha I am so good that I scare myself.

Try this: http://www.narmer.pl/dyn/25en.htm

[Jerubaal]

I did a quick internet search of this "one of the best-known" kings of Egypt:

Most references point to Piye as being the first ruler of the 25th Dynasty. Obviously, different references refer to him under different names. It is belived he ruled Kush (Nubia) from about 750 to 719 BC. Piankhi was his birth name. But in various references, we see his birth name referred to as Piankhy, Piye, Piy and Piyi. However, some references point out that his true name was Piye, and that this was wrongly read as Piankhi. His Throne Name was Men-kheper-re (meaning "The Manifestation of Re Abides"). But this name too will vary, being also spelled Menkheperra. Of course, this king, as most others, had several other names which are not generally provided.

I believe that facts about Egypt and Egyptology have the effect of actually disproving the Book of Mormon as an ancient record.

Care to actually cite a source on this one?

[Jaybear]

Yet his name, not mentioned in the Bible, remained unknown to scholars until the end of the nineteenth century." Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch, 3rd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 283-84.

Not one to take anything at face value, a quick google search revealed that the name Piankhi appears extensively in a student manual published in 1869, on the Section realted to the history of Egypt. http://books.google.com/books?vid=0oHA__yX...&dq=Piankhi

Given the extensive treatment given this person in a broad historical overview prepared for students, I have to question Nibley assertion that the name was not discovered by scholars until the "end of the 19th century." By 1869, they seemed to know quite abit about this fellow.

BTW, I am not suggesting that JS must have had this book in his extensive library. I simply suggestion that Nibley's factual assertion may not be factual.

[cacheman]

Not one to take anything at face value, a quick google search revealed that the name Piankhi appears extensively in a student manual published in 1869, on the Section realted to the history of Egypt. http://books.google.com/books?vid=0oHA__yX...&dq=Piankhi

Given the extensive treatment given this person in a broad historical overview prepared for students, I have to question Nibley assertion that the name was not discovered by scholars until the "end of the 19th century." By 1869, they seemed to know quite abit about this fellow.

BTW, I am not suggesting that JS must have had this book in his extensive library. I simply suggestion that Nibley's factual assertion may not be factual.

If anything, this only shows that Dr. Nibley wasn't aware of all the facts at that time. Even Dr. Gee concludes that some of his research in this area was outdated. The fact of the matter is that if the name "Piankhi" did happen to be known prior to 1829 (which I haven't seen evidence for), It would seem a real stretch for the writer/s of the Book of Mormon to associate the name Piankhi with "Paanchi" (assuming that they were concocting egyptian sounding names for the Book of Mormon).

cacheman

[Gervin]

Care to actually cite a source on this one?

The Tour Egypt site only provides a list of reference for the page on which the reference to Piankhi occurs. The references that are listed are:

Atlas of Ancient Egypt Baines, John; Malek, Jaromir 1980 Les Livres De France

Chronicle of the Pharaohs (The Reign-By-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt) Clayton, Peter A. 1994 Thames and Hudson Ltd ISBN 0-500-05074-0

History of Ancient Egypt, A Grimal, Nicolas 1988 Blackwell None Stated

Monarchs of the Nile Dodson, Aidan 1995 Rubicon Press ISBN 0-948695-20-x

Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, The Shaw, Ian 2000 Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-815034-2

Who Were the Phraohs? (A history of their names with a list of cartouches) Quirke, Stephen 1990 Dover Publications ISBN 0-486-26586-2

[USU78]

I did a quick internet search of this "one of the best-known" kings of Egypt: I believe that facts about Egypt and Egyptology have the effect of actually disproving the Book of Mormon as an ancient record.

The CIWA appears to disagree, Gervin:

http://www.virtual-egyptian-museum.org/Col...21.P.html&0

[cksalmon]

Well, we haven't gotten close to dating a reference back to JS's time, yet. C'mon, everyone, pull your 18th- and early 19th-century overviews of Egypt off the shelf and get crackin'.

CKS

[Luigi]

There's a saying: He who will not subject his ideas to a frank and open discussion about their validity loves his opinion more than the truth.

So are you suggesting that more Mormons should engage in open dialogue/discussion with anti-mormons? I bet you will have a much harder time getting Church members to get involved in such a challenge of beliefs than any difficulty you've had in getting critics to participate in your discussions.