The Full Text Of The William Albright Letter

[cacheman]

I thought I'd ask this again:

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?

I'm wondering if it's possible that he might have conflated separate letters when attributing this statement to Dr. Albright. Is anyone aware of additional correspondence from Dr. Albright?

cacheman

[cacheman]

Just thought I'd post this email exchange between me and a well known egyptologist. I left his name off unless I recieve permission from him to add it. Hopefully this will add to and revive this interesting discussion.

My email:

Dr. *******,

If you have a couple of minutes to reply to my question, I would be very grateful. Are Paanchi and Pahoran legitimate ancient egyptian names? And if so, would there be a reason that someone in upstate New York circa 1829 would be able to know that? Any comments would be appreciated.

Thank you,

His response:

Paanchi is a version of Piankhy, "the living one,"a well-known Egyptian name from c. 1250 BC into the late period; Pahor (I don't know where the -an comes from), "he who belongs to Horus," is a name also current during the same period,

which comes into Coptic and can still be found among names popular with Coptic Christians.

1829 is a decade after Champollion's decipherment,, and knowledge of the Egyoptian language was by

that time beginning to spread among intelligentsia all over the world.

*******

cacheman

[maklelan]

I think that's an interesting supplement to this discussion, but three things are lacking:

Beyond the very vague "knowledge was beginning to spread," no one seems to have a clue how to put these two names into Joseph Smith's vocabulary. Albright tried a few ideas, but they don't pan out. Exactly what degree of awareness of Egyptian names was extant in New York? No one can seem to answer this question.

Another problem is the Book of Abraham. If Joseph Smith was cognizant enough of Egyptology during the translation of the Book of Mormon to sneak in two authentic Egyptian names, we would expect the Book of Abraham, over a decade later, to provide an even higher level of Egytologisms (to completely make up a word), but the critics all agree that his knowledge of Egyptian was non-existent, and that he guessed about the right to left reading because he understood Hebrew. Which one is it?

The third problem is the provenance of the names Pyankhi and Pahor in English. Just because the Rosetta Stone was deciphered a decade before does not mean that suddenly every Egyptian record, complete with lists of names, were suddenly translated. I invite all with the means to do so to attempt to track down the provenance of those two names in English. I will do what I can, but I know some have better resources than me.

When these three points can be cleared up I think we'll have a much firmer argument for or against the authenticity of these names.

[Jaybear]

I think that's an interesting supplement to this discussion, but three things are lacking:

Beyond the very vague "knowledge was beginning to spread," no one seems to have a clue how to put these two names into Joseph Smith's vocabulary. Albright tried a few ideas, but they don't pan out. Exactly what degree of awareness of Egyptian names was extant in New York? No one can seem to answer this question.

Another problem is the Book of Abraham. If Joseph Smith was cognizant enough of Egyptology during the translation of the Book of Mormon to sneak in two authentic Egyptian names, we would expect the Book of Abraham, over a decade later, to provide an even higher level of Egytologisms (to completely make up a word), but the critics all agree that his knowledge of Egyptian was non-existent, and that he guessed about the right to left reading because he understood Hebrew. Which one is it?

The third problem is the provenance of the names Pyankhi and Pahor in English. Just because the Rosetta Stone was deciphered a decade before does not mean that suddenly every Egyptian record, complete with lists of names, were suddenly translated. I invite all with the means to do so to attempt to track down the provenance of those two names in English. I will do what I can, but I know some have better resources than me.

When these three points can be cleared up I think we'll have a much firmer argument for or against the authenticity of these names.

Nice analysis, but flawed in a one important respect.

Your first two points assume that it was JS that came up with the BoM names at issue, rather than JS liberally borrow from someone else's story.

[maklelan]

Nice analysis, but flawed in a one important respect.

Your first two points assume that it was JS that came up with the BoM names at issue, rather than JS liberally borrow from someone else's story.

This opinion has been promulgated since the year the Book of Mormon has been published, and it has never been shown to be the best explanation for the provenance of the Book of Mormon. I consider my first and third points to address your question. If Joseph Smith didn't come up with the names, then who did? To that he didn't do it and then not provide a single proposal concerning who did is ludicrous. Can anyone show that there was a human being in up-state New York who had this knowledge in the late 1820's? Until that can be shown your idea takes a far back seat to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was a product of Joseph Smith's imagination or inspiration.

Your idea is also secondary to my third point. If Piankhy cannot be shown to have been transliterated by the publication of the Book of Mormon then the options slim down to two: coincidence and inspiration. The coicidence theory has been shown to be ridiculous, despite the howling and whining of the anti's.

I consider your point to be valid, but I believe it is assimilated in my points, within the context of our discussion.

[cacheman]

First of all, I think that your second point is interesting, and would need to be resolved.

Your idea is also secondary to my third point. If Piankhy cannot be shown to have been transliterated by the publication of the Book of Mormon then the options slim down to two: coincidence and inspiration.

I'm not much of a either/or type of guy, and I think that this scenario wouldn't neccessarily fall into that type of problem. If Paanchi is not found in pre-Book of Momorn literature, then are are more than two options:

1. Inspiration accounts for the name in the Book of Mormon, it's truly of ancient origins.

2. It's possible that the writer of the Book of Mormon was familiar with the name, but there is no extant evidence.

3. The writer/s of the Book of Mormon used biblical clues in guessing their "Egyptian sounding" name (ie. the double aa construct in two Egyptian names in the Bible, one with "paan" as a name part.)

4. Coincidence ( the number of acceptable variants for Piankhi would increase the slim likelihood)

In my opinion, the options that I mentioned are listed in order of likelihood in the event that "paanchi" is not found in pre-Book of Mormon literature potentially available to the writer/s of the BoM.

The coicidence theory has been shown to be ridiculous, despite the howling and whining of the anti's.

We should just leave the hyperbole behind. It doesn't do anything for the discussion.

cacheman

[Jaybear]

This opinion has been promulgated since the year the Book of Mormon has been published, and it has never been shown to be the best explanation for the provenance of the Book of Mormon. I consider my first and third points to address your question. If Joseph Smith didn't come up with the names, then who did? To that he didn't do it and then not provide a single proposal concerning who did is ludicrous. Can anyone show that there was a human being in up-state New York who had this knowledge in the late 1820's? Until that can be shown your idea takes a far back seat to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was a product of Joseph Smith's imagination or inspiration.

Your idea is also secondary to my third point. If Piankhy cannot be shown to have been transliterated by the publication of the Book of Mormon then the options slim down to two: coincidence and inspiration. The coicidence theory has been shown to be ridiculous, despite the howling and whining of the anti's.

I consider your point to be valid, but I believe it is assimilated in my points, within the context of our discussion.

You have an annoying tendency to treat self serving statements of opinion as objective established fact:

"it has never been shown to be the best explanation for the provenance of the Book of Mormon."

"The coicidence theory has been shown to be ridiculous, despite the howling and whining of the anti's."

I am curious, who is it that you think gets to decide what is the best explanation for the "provenance" of the BoM, declares that the coincidence theory is, in fact, rediculous. Is it you?

As for your third point, I never disputed that its a valid question. Nibley attempted to address this point, but did a very poor job.

I would note that a quick google search shows that the name Piankhi shows up in a french book published in 1827.

That gets us half way there.

[maklelan]

First of all, I think that your second point is interesting, and would need to be resolved.

I'm not much of a either/or type of guy, and I think that this scenario wouldn't neccessarily fall into that type of problem. If Paanchi is not found in pre-Book of Momorn literature, then are are more than two options:

2. It's possible that the writer of the Book of Mormon was familiar with the name, but there is no extant evidence.

I don't think there's anyone alive who would agree that it's at all possible that someone in New York cracked open this Egyptian name from the other side of the world and, keeping it a secret from scholarship, whispered it into the ear of Joseph Smith, but if we lower the bar on the odds of the option, then sure, that could be an ption.

3. The writer/s of the Book of Mormon used biblical clues in guessing their "Egyptian sounding" name (ie. the double aa construct in two Egyptian names in the Bible, one with "paan" as a name part.)

And getting the guess right would be a coincidence.

We should just leave the hyperbole behind. It doesn't do anything for the discussion.

cacheman

Will you please go back and post this same assertion behind all of the non-Mormon ejaculations about the ridiculously fraudulent nature of the Book of Mormon?

[maklelan]

You have an annoying tendency to treat self serving statements of opinion as objective established fact:

"it has never been shown to be the best explanation for the provenance of the Book of Mormon."

"The coicidence theory has been shown to be ridiculous, despite the howling and whining of the anti's."

I am curious, who is it that you think gets to decide what is the best explanation for the "provenance" of the BoM, declares that the coincidence theory is, in fact, rediculous. Is it you?

As for your third point, I never disputed that its a valid question. Nibley attempted to address this point, but did a very poor job.

I would note that a quick google search shows that the name Piankhi shows up in a french book published in 1827.

That gets us half way there.

Why not address the substantive parts of my argument? It's easy to just criticize everyone, but it's another thing altogether to provide evidence when it's asked for.

By the by, why did you drop off the planet when the authenticity of the name was proven and then re-surface only to blurt out a bunch of ad hominem? Care to respond to the authentic nature of Paanchi, or are you just going to gloss over it in favor of participating in an argument that better suits your methodology and your understanding of the evidence? Maybe we'll forget about your non-existent argument if you change the subject enough.

See, I can do the same thing you guys do!

[cacheman]

I don't think there's anyone alive who would agree that it's at all possible that someone in New York cracked open this Egyptian name from the other side of the world and, keeping it a secret from scholarship, whispered it into the ear of Joseph Smith, but if we lower the bar on the odds of the option, then sure, that could be an ption.

Of course no one is proposing this scenario. This is called hyperbole, and it's not useful. How can I even respond to intentional misrepresentations of my points? Tone it down please.

And getting the guess right would be a coincidence.

From Mirriam Webster:

Main Entry: co

[cksalmon]

I'm still wondering about Albright's assumption that JS picked up these names from some outdated lexicon(s) and via his studious attempts to learn language. To me, that explanation is at least as plausible if not more so than that BoM represents a genuine ancient text.

True, no one has presented evidence here FAIRboards.org that JS had access to an outmoded Egyptian lexicon or that, in his attempt to learn languages, he somehow came across these names. But, as many are fond of pointing out, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Further, I'm wondering what the LDS apologetic response would if such sources were cited here. I really don't think it would change anyone's mind.

Best.

CKS

P.S. When next I get to a decent library, I'll see what, if anything, I can dig up.

[consiglieri]

You have an annoying tendency to treat self serving statements of opinion as objective established fact:

"it has never been shown to be the best explanation for the provenance of the Book of Mormon."

"The coicidence theory has been shown to be ridiculous, despite the howling and whining of the anti's."

I am curious, who is it that you think gets to decide what is the best explanation for the "provenance" of the BoM, declares that the coincidence theory is, in fact, rediculous. Is it you?

As for your third point, I never disputed that its a valid question. Nibley attempted to address this point, but did a very poor job.

I would note that a quick google search shows that the name Piankhi shows up in a french book published in 1827.

That gets us half way there.

And of course the fact that the Book of Mormon uses the french word "adieu" gets us all the way there!

But seriously, it makes sense that the name would show up in a French book in 1827, as I am starting to get a suspicion that the discovery of this Egyptian name may be tied to the translation of the Rosetta stone, which I think was done by a Frenchman named Champollion, if memory serves. The Egyptologist above noted that the Rosetta stone was deciphered about a decade before the Book of Mormon came off the press, so it is logical that the name would make its first appearance in a French publication. Now the serious question is whether it showed up in English prior to 1829, and in a format accessible to Joseph Smith.

By the way, do you have a link to the French publication you reference? Good detective work, by the way.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cacheman]

And of course the fact that the Book of Mormon uses the french word "adieu" gets us all the way there!

But seriously, it makes sense that the name would show up in a French book in 1827, as I am starting to get a suspicion that the discovery of this Egyptian name may be tied to the translation of the Rosetta stone, which I think was done by a Frenchman named Champollion, if memory serves. The Egyptologist above noted that the Rosetta stone was deciphered about a decade before the Book of Mormon came off the press, so it is logical that the name would make its first appearance in a French publication. Now the serious question is whether it showed up in English prior to 1829, and in a format accessible to Joseph Smith.

By the way, do you have a link to the French publication you reference? Good detective work, by the way.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

On top of that, if the writer/s of the Book of Mormon did have access to the name "Piankhi", why would they associate it with "Paanchi" unless they were familiar with the different variants?

cacheman

[consiglieri]

I'm still wondering about Albright's assumption that JS picked up these names from some outdated lexicon(s) and via his studious attempts to learn language. To me, that explanation is at least as plausible if not more so than that BoM represents a genuine ancient text.

True, no one has presented evidence here FAIRboards.org that JS had access to an outmoded Egyptian lexicon or that, in his attempt to learn languages, he somehow came across these names. But, as many are fond of pointing out, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Further, I'm wondering what the LDS apologetic response would if such sources were cited here. I really don't think it would change anyone's mind.

Best.

CKS

P.S. When next I get to a decent library, I'll see what, if anything, I can dig up.

Hi, CKS,

I think what Albright is referencing is Joseph Smith's attempts to learn Hebrew which he began in the mid-1830's by retaining the services of a rabbi to teach Hebrew to the students in the school of the prophets in Kirtland, Ohio. That is the first attempt on the part of Joseph Smith, of which I am aware, to learn any foreign language (French included).

I am not an expert, but only a fairly well-informed amateur on the life and times of Joseph Smith, so I am open to correction, but according to his wife, Emma Smith, at the time Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon in 1829, he had enough trouble with English, let alone any foreign language, as she mentioned that it would have been unlikely Joseph Smith could have dictated even a letter at that point in his life.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

cacheman:

On top of that, if the writer/s of the Book of Mormon did have access to the name "Piankhi", why would they associate it with "Paanchi" unless they were familiar with the different variants?

This is, of course, a difficult question to answer if we assume that the writer/s of the Book of Mormon had available to them a source with the name "Piankhi," and intentionally cribbed it for use in the Book of Mormon, but varied the spelling to make it "Paanchi."

While virtually anything is possible, it seems that the most likely scenarios are being narrowed down to coincidence (which is seeming less likely) or evidence of an authentic ancient Egyptian connection (which to nonbelievers might seem impossible).

I hope, though, that we can keep this discussion on an even level, addressing the question as it presents itself in the Book of Mormon as though the Book of Mormon were any text claiming to be ancient that first made its appearance in 1830, and without the added baggage of the revelatory nature of its production.

Discussing the issue within this framework would seem fair to all parties concerned.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cksalmon]

and without the added baggage of the revelatory nature of its production.

Hey Consig--

I'm game to try. To be quite honest, though, the added baggage weighs heavily in attempting to assess the apparent ancient parallels in BoM. I'll attempt to temporarily muzzle my disbelief.

Best.

CKS

[consiglieri]

Hey Consig--

I'm game to try. To be quite honest, though, the added baggage weighs heavily in attempting to assess the apparent ancient parallels in BoM. I'll attempt to temporarily muzzle my disbelief.

Best.

CKS

I know what you mean about the muzzle, my nomobro. I am trying hard to muzzle my belief, and be as objective as possible.

We have pretty much left off discussing Pahor(an) in favor of discussing Paanchi, which is fine by me. It helps focus the discussion. But with all the objectivity I can muster, Pahor is a qualified ancient Egyptian name, and even though it appears in the Book of Mormon with the otherwise unattested (so far as I know) suffix of -an, I am finding it unusual that Paanchi/Piankhi, which is in its entirety an ancient attested Egyptian name, should be found side-by-side in the Book of Mormon with the name of his brother, Pahor(an), an otherwise ancient attested Egyptian name (with an unattested suffix). And of course, there is the "other" Pahor(an) that makes his appearance in the same spot, being the father of Paanchi and Pahor(an).

I am finding the possibility of coincidence here to be approaching the proverbial dot on the horizon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jaybear]

I am finding the possibility of coincidence here to be approaching the proverbial dot on the horizon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

First, here is the 1827 book that mentioned Pianchki

http://books.google.com/books?vid=0cxQI4wu...khi+Champollion

While it was published in French, I doubt that the French translation of documents describing ancient Egyptian history were kept a secret from the rest of the world.

Second, despite the above, I am more inclined to believe that the close approximation of the names is purely coincidental, rather than an attempt by the writer of the BoM to use similar Egyptian names.

That is purely a subjective assessment on my part.

BTW, how does one go about measuring the possibility of coincidence occurring? Either its a coincidence or not. If a lottery winner prayed before he selected his winning numbers, is it therefore reasonable to conclude God intervened if the odds were 15 million to one.

Makelan: Why not address the substantive parts of my argument? It's easy to just criticize everyone, but it's another thing altogether to provide evidence when it's asked for.

By the by, why did you drop off the planet when the authenticity of the name was proven and then re-surface only to blurt out a bunch of ad hominem? Care to respond to the authentic nature of Paanchi, or are you just going to gloss over it in favor of participating in an argument that better suits your methodology and your understanding of the evidence? Maybe we'll forget about your non-existent argument if you change the subject enough.

See, I can do the same thing you guys do!

I didn't criticize everyone, I criticized you.

I did not blurt out a bunch of ad hominess's, I made one simple observation, the accuracy of which I notice you havent disputed.

As for the "Why not address the substantive parts of my argument?" You seem to overlooked the fact that I agreed your third point was a valid observation. I addressed substantively points one and two, by noting that they were contingent on an assumption that JS wrote the BoM on his own.

As for Paanchi, I didn't see anything of substance added to the thread that required that I reiterate my earlier point. I have not now, or ever disputed that Piankhi was an authentic egyptian name. When a nonLDS Egyptian scholar explains how or why he concludes that Paanchi is derived from Piankhi, and is therefore also an ancient egyptian name, I will gladly concede the point.

[cksalmon]

Second, despite the above, I am more inclined to believe that the close approximation of the names is purely coincidental, rather than an attempt by the writer of the BoM to use similar Egyptian names.

I'm with you to a point, here, Jaybear.

But, I think the two names in succession need to be dealt with. At the very least, I think we can say that they approximate Egyptian names to a fairly high degree.

It's certainly possible that JS picked them up somewhere. To what degree that is plausible, I don't know. But I wouldn't necessarily think that my own web searches (or yours) would be able to pin down exactly what outdated Egyptian lexicons JS might have had access to. Albright seems to think that is the most likely source of JS's usage of these two Egyptian-like names. Or, at least, that's how I read him here (Consig, I think, disagrees).

What do you think?

Best.

CKS

[William the Conqueror]

_____________________________________________

Dear Mr. Howard:

Thanks for sending me a copy of the publication of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. There does appear to be evidence that Joseph Smith had studied some Egyptian. .....

In any case it has nothing whatever to do with the original Egyptian manuscript of a copy of the Book of the Dead.

The supposed digits have nothing whatever to do with the figures. You must remember that our digits go back to India through the Arabs and were not brought to Europe until less than a thousand years ago.

.....

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.

Cordially,

(signature)

W. F. Albright

___________________________________________________

Now that I have produced the letter in its entirety, are we able to achieve a consensus that William F. Albright was surprised to see two authentic Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig,

I italicized the salient parts (in my view) of this letter of Albright's. I'm not at all impressed with the alleged authentic two Egyptian names, but I am impressed with Albright's statement that Smith's translation has nothing to do with the Egyptian hieroglyphics on this parchment. To concentrate on the two Egyptian names and neglect the basic import of the letter is akin to swatting gnats and swallowing camels.

[William the Conqueror]

Of course one could take Paul Osborne's approach and say that Joseph Smith saw a spiritual meaning that is completely separate from the standard hieroglyphic interpretation. That would in my view be similar to the Bible Code which I totally repudiate.

[serapha]

Now that I have produced the letter in its entirety, are we able to achieve a consensus that William F. Albright was surprised to see two authentic Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hi there!

I pulled my copy of Albright's "The Archaeology of Palestine" from my shelf, and in looking through the index, the chapter on Peoples, Writing, Liturature...

I think we can draw on the mind of William Albright when we read his other works... and read his thought processes in action.

Page 173....

"The evidences of place-names and personal names if of primary importance in determining what languages were spoken in different periods..." and he continues to write the importance of supportive evidences... and concerning various alphabets in the Levant...

page 192-193 had a long listing of comparative scripts.. about which Albright writes on pages 185 and 186 extensively on what has been found concerning the influence of Egyptian Hieroglyphs... and his summary statement...

"... it will be well to withhold judgement until more work has been done...." referring to to linguisting studies...

so... I think we can assess in the letter being discussed that Albright was not writing in "judgement" concerning the two words, but was being kind in his response because there just wasn't enough evidence to make a judgement.

~serapha~

[maklelan]

Of course no one is proposing this scenario. This is called hyperbole, and it's not useful. How can I even respond to intentional misrepresentations of my points? Tone it down please.

I didn't think there was anything aggressive about my tone, but I'll use less adjectives if you like.

A coincidence is by accident. If someone is trying to make an egyptian sounding name and uses the Bible as an aid to do so, then it would not be a true coincidence. I do agree that there would be an element of coincidence, but it would not be "merely coincidental"

An Egyptian sounding name may be intentional, but to have it actually correspond to a legitimate name would be a coincidence in my book. If someone were trying to create an Egyptian sounding name the production of a real name is not their goal. If they find out that they made one up that happens to correspond perfectly with a real one they will not say they were trying to do it, they will say it coincidentally worked out that way.

Could you please just respond to me. Your anger is misplaced.

cacheman

I was not responding in anger, I was just making a point about the use of hyperbole in the posts of every single person on this message board, but most prominently by anti-Mormon people who shake their heads in disbelief at the idiocy of believing such an obvious forgery and make that sentiment known whenever possible. I have yet to see anyone respond to their statements the way you responded to me. I took your criticism and recognize the fallacy of my statement and was asking you to consider the proclivity of your constituents to do the same. I wasn't angry in the least.

[cacheman]

so... I think we can assess in the letter being discussed that Albright was not writing in "judgement" concerning the two words, but was being kind in his response because there just wasn't enough evidence to make a judgement.

Maybe so. I'm curious, at what point do you think egyptology will be reliable enough to make that kind of judgement?

cacheman

[cacheman]

On second thought, I'm just gonna leave this be.....

cacheman