The Full Text Of The William Albright Letter

[Jerubaal]

Deleted out of respect for my Catholic homie

Hey, lay off Maklelan a bit. He's actually a damn decent guy in person. It's actually pretty hard to gauge tone and whatnot in writing, both for the writer and reader.

[cacheman]

Thanks Jerubaal for deleting that out. I'm just going to let this rest. Sometimes I get too much on the defensive. I agree that I may have misjudged the tone, and if so I apologize.

cacheman

BTW, I'm not catholic, just some dude tryin to figure things out....

[maklelan]

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.

You're backing up even further! I've explained several times how the derivations come about. They're simple preference in transliteration. The differences are completely arbitrary. This is what I'm talking about! You make a statement, it gets shown to be false and then you come back with this amended statement that you feel still has claws, but when we explain with perfect clarity how it works you again amend your requirements. First it was the text of the letter, then it was the lack of the letter "i," and now you demand a non-LDS Egyptologist waste his time telling you that Piankhy and Paanchi are the exact same name with two different methods of transliteration. I've posted four or five posts that clearly explain how subjective transliterating is, and how these morphologies are common, but you've refused to respond to them. Now you want credentials to walk in here and tell you the same thing I've been telling you for two weeks? Your argument is a joke.

I guess I better go find a non-LDS Egyptologist to back up my assertion. Well, I I'll just turn back a page and copy and paste the one supplied by Cacheman. He doesn't give his name because he doesn't have permission, but this is what he says:

"Paanchi is a version of Piankhy, 'the living one,' a well-known Egyptian name from c. 1250 BC into the late period."

I now invite you to concede the point, but I doubt you will. My arrogance probably irritates you and, if you're like most of the people on this board, your pride would have you slit your wrists before you admit to such a jerk that you are wrong and they are right. If my past experiences with people on boards like this who get backed into corners is any indication, you'll try to wriggle out of this one by arguing the semantics of a word or two from the Egyptologist's evidence, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I apologize for being a jerk. I am well aware of how abrasive I come across when I get agitated, but I'm seriously amazed at the shallow arguments that get tossed around by people who have no business even entering them. I don't direct that personally at you, but I have been annoyed by your evasive methodology. I should be much more composed about this kind of stuff, and I apologize. Jerubaal just started up here at BYU and I appreciate him standing up for me, but I feel bad for not being a better example. I'm gonna lay one more thing out there: If you have genuine evidence or if you have a real reason to continue to doubt the authenticity of these names then please share it, but please don't sidestep the evidence to nitpick about something that has no relevence. I may be a jerk over the internet, but I stand up for my evidence, I admit when I'm wrong, and I respond when people ask for a response. I just ask the same in return.

[maklelan]

Thanks Jerubaal for deleting that out. I'm just going to let this rest. Sometimes I get too much on the defensive. I agree that I may have misjudged the tone, and if so I apologize.

cacheman

BTW, I'm not catholic, just some dude tryin to figure things out....

Hey, I apologize too. I should be more careful how I express myself. I don't think about how it comes across. Jerubaal told me today that I tend to get pretty fiesty, and I thought about it and I do that too often. My bad.

[USU78]

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.

I think you're conflating issues here. I don't think Albright was. The two names are Book of Mormon names and were produced in or before 1829 by JSJr. The Book of the Dead Albright refers to is the then recently rediscovered alleged JS Papyri source of the Book of Abraham, purchased a few years later: and the names Pahoran and Paanchi do not appear anywhere in the BoA.

[consiglieri]

Dear USU "Johnny on the spot" 78

Thank you for taking the time to point this out so I didn't have to; and for recognizing the somewhat injudicious use of ellipses by WTC; something that Albright might have characterized as a lacuna in his letter.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[William the Conqueror]

_____________________________________________

Dear Mr. Howard:

.....

I read an extremely interesting account by Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, in chapter 12, in which she deals with Joseph Smith's tremendous efforts to learn languages. 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

Now I am very interested in reading Fawn Brodie's account. I hope to find it in the library.

[Jaybear]

I guess I better go find a non-LDS Egyptologist to back up my assertion. Well, I I'll just turn back a page and copy and paste the one supplied by Cacheman. He doesn't give his name because he doesn't have permission, but this is what he says:

"Paanchi is a version of Piankhy, 'the living one,' a well-known Egyptian name from c. 1250 BC into the late period."

I now invite you to concede the point, but I doubt you will.

As I read the email, the alleged scholar says that Piankhy is a well known egyptian name. A point which I don't care to dispute.

He also says that Paanchi is a version of Piankhy, but he does not explain WHY or HOW he came to that conclusion. If Cacheman will email him back and ask him to clarify how and why he came to that conclusion,

then we may have a consensus on this point. Its not that complicated.

I apologize for being a jerk. I am well aware of how abrasive I come across when I get agitated, but I'm seriously amazed at the shallow arguments that get tossed around by people who have no business even entering them. I don't direct that personally at you, but I have been annoyed by your evasive methodology.

What evasive methodology? I have made it clear from the outset, that I don't make a habit of accepting conclusive statements, even from experts at face value. I would like to know how and why they reached the conclusion. All to often conclusions are overstated or based on faulty assumptions.

Asking someone how or why they have reached a conclusion is hardly evasive methodology. In fact, you can't introduce expert testimony in court without introducing the proper foundation.

BTW, accusing me of engage employing "evasive methodology" is an example of jerky behavior. That you would apologize, then employ jerky behavior suggests to me that your apology was not sincere.

If you have genuine evidence or if you have a real reason to continue to doubt the authenticity of these names then please share it, but please don't sidestep the evidence to nitpick about something that has no relevence. I may be a jerk over the internet, but I stand up for my evidence, I admit when I'm wrong, and I respond when people ask for a response. I just ask the same in return.

I have a reason to doubt the authenticity of these names.

I see this as an unresolved issue. If I google piankhy, and pahor, I get hundreds of textual reference petaining to authentic egyptian.

Whereas a text search for Paanchi, and pahoran, I get no references outside of the Book of Mormon context, with the exception of one book published in some Indian language, which has the word paanchi.

Under the circumstances, I see Paanchi and Pahoron as closely resembling authentic egyptian names, but I am not persuaded that, standing alone, they are in fact authentic Egyptian names.

[maklelan]

As I read the email, the alleged scholar says that Piankhy is a well known egyptian name. A point which I don't care to dispute.

He also says that Paanchi is a version of Piankhy, but he does not explain WHY or HOW he came to that conclusion. If Cacheman will email him back and ask him to clarify how and why he came to that conclusion,

then we may have a consensus on this point. Its not that complicated.

This is where I see evasion. Your request earlier was for a non-LDS Egyptologist to confirm the correlation. That has been produced so now you amend the request so that my evidence fails to answer it. In doing so you ask for additional evidence. You didn't ask for the methodology of the non-LDS Egyptologist, you asked only for the opinion, expecting that it would not be forthcoming. Now that it has been produced, you must change your request so you don't have to concede the argument.

What evasive methodology? I have made it clear from the outset, that I don't make a habit of accepting conclusive statements, even from experts at face value. I would like to know how and why they reached the conclusion. All to often conclusions are overstated or based on faulty assumptions.

See above. You didn't ask to hear about their method of discovery when you asked for the evidence. You can't insist that I anticipate your every consideration when you make a simple request.

Asking someone how or why they have reached a conclusion is hardly evasive methodology. In fact, you can't introduce expert testimony in court without introducing the proper foundation.

And I provided the methodology four times. You did not respond to it.

BTW, accusing me of engage employing "evasive methodology" is an example of jerky behavior. That you would apologize, then employ jerky behavior suggests to me that your apology was not sincere.

I apologized for the manner in which I presented my concerns, and you will notice they have toned down quite a bit. I still, however, have those concerns.

I have a reason to doubt the authenticity of these names.

I see this as an unresolved issue. If I google piankhy, and pahor, I get hundreds of textual reference petaining to authentic egyptian.

Whereas a text search for Paanchi, and pahoran, I get no references outside of the Book of Mormon context, with the exception of one book published in some Indian language, which has the word paanchi.

Under the circumstances, I see Paanchi and Pahoron as closely resembling authentic egyptian names, but I am not persuaded that, standing alone, they are in fact authentic Egyptian names.

They are unique transliterations. I'll give you an example. Kokaubeam. Put it in a search engine and tell me if you find any non-Mormon sites that transliterate the Hebrew word for "stars" this way. You won't find any. Joseph Smith transliterated it this way because he was taught Hebrew by a man with a very unique (and very 19th century) style of transliteration. Most people now transliterate it kokabim. Put that into a search engine and all you'll see is Hebrew. Paanchi was even before Joseph Smith knew anything about transliteration, so we shouldn't really expect it to coincide with any modern, mainstream transliterations. Transliterations were not standardized till long after Smith;s death, and they're still relatively loose, so the difference shouldn't be a surprise. I can't imagine that anyone with a good understanding of Egyptian or transliteration proccesses in general would disagree with my explanation. I can't think of another reason that anyone else could come up with, but if you really want to hear it from the non-LDS guy you're gonna have to ask Cacheman to do it.

[cksalmon]

This is where I see evasion. Your request earlier was for a non-LDS Egyptologist to confirm the correlation. That has been produced so now you amend the request so that my evidence fails to answer it.

I didn't realize we knew who the scholar was. Did I miss it in the hustle and bustle?

Best.

CKS

[cacheman]

I didn't realize we knew who the scholar was. Did I miss it in the hustle and bustle?

I haven't mentioned his name simply because I believe that he's unaware that he was providing fodder for a theological discussion. I'm not sure if he wants to be associated with that or not. I might ask if he wouldn't mind next time I email him.

I will tell you that I emailed several egyptologists that I got from the "list of egyptologists" on wikepedia. He was the one that answered. I don't believe that he's LDS, but I don't know for certain.

cacheman

[Jaybear]

Maklelan: This is where I see evasion. Your request earlier was for a non-LDS Egyptologist to confirm the correlation. .... You didn't ask for the methodology of the non-LDS Egyptologist, you asked only for the opinion, expecting that it would not be forthcoming. Now that it has been produced, you must change your request so you don't have to concede the argument.

Nonsense. In the very first comment I offered on the full text of the Albright letter, I expressly noted that the principal reason I considered his statement deficient was because it:

Jaybear earlier: ... was a statement made as an aside, without analysis or explanation and was not the central point of the letter.

Albright offered no explanation or analysis to support a conclusively opinion, and Cacheman's scholar offered no explanation or analysis to support his opinion.

I have not raised the bar. I have raised the same issue.

And I provided the methodology four times. You did not respond to it.

I really don't care to. I am sorry if that troubles you.

[consiglieri]

I didn't realize we knew who the scholar was. Did I miss it in the hustle and bustle?

Best.

CKS

Dear CKS,

Keeping firmly affixed your "willing suspension of disbelief" regarding the ancientness of the Book of Mormon, I would like to ask you something in the friendliest manner possible:

You have registered some degree (you decide how much) of interest in the fact that we have in the Book of Mormon text Paanchi/Piankhi right next to Pahor(an), both of which are starting to look decidedly ancient, authentic and Egyptian.

If we then throw into the mix the Book of Mormon name "Aha" which is not right next to the other two, but which is the name of a Book of Mormon soldier, coupled with the fact that "Aha" is an ancient Egyptian word for "fighter," and was used as a pharaonic name prior to 600 B.C.; does this increase or decrease your "degree of interest" on the issue of ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Egyptian for "dogpiling")

[William the Conqueror]

I will tell you that I emailed several egyptologists that I got from the "list of egyptologists" on wikepedia. He was the one that answered. I don't believe that he's LDS, but I don't know for certain.

cacheman

Too bad the late D.J. Nelson isn't around to comment on this. I understand he was a brilliant Eqyptologist.

[consiglieri]

Too bad the late D.J. Nelson isn't around to comment on this. I understand he was a brilliant Eqyptologist.

Ed Decker certainly thought so.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[USU78]

[Paanchi and Pahor(an)] are unique transliterations. I'll give you an example. Kokaubeam. Put it in a search engine and tell me if you find any non-Mormon sites that transliterate the Hebrew word for "stars" this way. You won't find any. Joseph Smith transliterated it this way because he was taught Hebrew by a man with a very unique (and very 19th century) style of transliteration. Most people now transliterate it kokabim. Put that into a search engine and all you'll see is Hebrew. Paanchi was even before Joseph Smith knew anything about transliteration, so we shouldn't really expect it to coincide with any modern, mainstream transliterations. Transliterations were not standardized till long after Smith;s death, and they're still relatively loose, so the difference shouldn't be a surprise. I can't imagine that anyone with a good understanding of Egyptian or transliteration proccesses in general would disagree with my explanation.

What some folks don't quite get is that there is not a one-for-one correspondence in the sounds represented by the symbols in different alphabets.

The Cyrillic alphabet (used by Russian and some other Slavic languages) is based upon the Greek, but has some unique symbols to represent sounds present in Slavic languages that don't occur (or at least don't occur frequently) in Greek . . . which is why Greek developed no symbol for the particular sound. ж and ц are two examples of those unique Cyrillic letters. In transliterating a Russian word containing those letters into Greek, a method of representing those sounds as best one can needs to be arrived at. Sometimes the transliteration is clumsy and folks arrive at different conclusions of how best to transliterate because of the lack of one-for-one correspondences. At some point, however, a concensus is arrived at (but in 1829 there was no consensus of how to transliterate Egyptian into Latin characters).

Add to this difficulty the fact that Egyptian is only mostly phonetic and that no vowels are represented in hieratic/hieroglyphic writing, and you see the difficulty in representing Egyptian words using Latin letters.

Moreover, vowels tend to shift over time (via umlaut/ablaut/other), sometimes quite rapidly, in any language, such that vowels appearing in a word as pronounced in 3,500 BCE may bear little resemblance to the vowels in the same word as pronounced in 75 BCE or 150 CE.

Thus Pi-ankh-y and Pa-anch-i, having a near one-to-one correspondence in vowels (only the initial vowel is different) and an absolute one-for-one correspondence of consonants (only the spelling of transliterated "ankh" is different), one can have high confidance that they are the same word -- in this case the same proper noun.

[cksalmon]

Keeping firmly affixed your "willing suspension of disbelief"

Consigâ??

You want me to read it like I read fiction...?

does this increase or decrease your "degree of interest" on the issue of ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon?

Well, that's certainly simple enough to answer. It does, of course, increase my interest. Now, whether or not it simultaneously decreases my resistance to viewing BoM as an ancient text is another question altogether. And one you, graciously, didn't ask.

(I might have let the muzzle slip just a tad there. I'll do better!)

Best to you this evening!

CKS

[consiglieri]

Consigâ??

You want me to read it like I read fiction...?

Well, that's certainly simple enough to answer. It does, of course, increase my interest. Now, whether or not it simultaneously decreases my resistance to viewing BoM as an ancient text is another question altogether. And one you, graciously, didn't ask.

(I might have let the muzzle slip just a tad there. I'll do better!)

Best to you this evening!

CKS

Dear CKS,

You are a tough nut to crack, though I must admit you have been more than gracious in making what concessions you have.

In light of the progress we have made with Paanchi/Piankhi and Pahor(an); and given the fact you have admitted an "increase of interest" with the additional Egyptian name (properly contextualized in the Book of Mormon) of "Aha," let me add something else to the mix.

USU78 above mentioned the challenges inherent in transliterating a non-Latin script text into a Latin-script text, and also discussed the fact that there were no vowels in ancient Egyptian writing, so the vowels must be supplied by the one doing the translation.

In that light, and in consideration of all the foregoing, I would like to bring up the single most famous name in the Book of Mormon; that of Mormon himself.

If we take out the vowels, we are left with the consonants of MRMN. This is also an authentic ancient Egyptian name title, commonly transliterated nowadays as MeRiaMoN, and usually translated as meaning "Beloved of Amon."

Now, the name Mormon does not necessarily show up right next to the name Paanchi/Piankhi in the Book of Mormon, as does Pahor(an), but in an ancient Egyptian inscription called The Stela of Piye, dated to 716-711 B.C.E., we do have the unusual occurence of the name MRMN (transliterated as Meriamon) right next to the name Piankhi--in fact, it was a title taken by Piankhi.

In fact, it is mentioned twice in the opening paragraphs of the rather lengthy inscription. So as to be fair (and because I don't translate Egyptian), I will use the translation from James Henry Breasted in his Ancient Records of Egypt (Chigago: 1906) Part IV, sec. 816:

____________________________________

The Stela of Piye

Year 21, first month of the first season, under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Meriamon-Piankhi, living forever.

Command which my majesty speaks: "Hear of what I did, more than the ancestors. I am a king, divine emanation, living image of Atum, who came forth from the womb, adorned as a ruler, of whom those greater than he were afraid; whose father knew, and whose mother recognized that he would rule in the egg, the Good God, beloved of the gods, achieving with his hands, Meriamon-Piankhi.

_______________________________________

These several Egyptian name-pairs, both within and without the Book of MRMN, are starting to make me think there may be something more going on here than mere coincidence. What say you, CKS?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[William the Conqueror]

Ed Decker certainly thought so.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I used an Ed Decker tract in 1980 by giving it to my LDS cube mate. It was titled ' A Love Letter to Moroni'.

The next day my engineering acquaintance had a fairly negative view of Ed Decker.

[maklelan]

Nonsense. In the very first comment I offered on the full text of the Albright letter, I expressly noted that the principal reason I considered his statement deficient was because it:

When we first talked about the letter you said you wouldn't be convinced until you saw the letter. We showed you the letter and you said you wouldn't be convinced because it was "dicta." When we explained that it was because it was beyond discussion you demanded to know what by what methodology he arrived at the conclusion. When I explained four times the methodology you refused to respond to it. When you claimed there was an "i" in one name so you needed justification for the comparison we produced an example of the same name spelled in Egyptian with an "i." You then demanded to hear the opinion of a non-LDS Egyptologist who agreed that the two names are the same. When that was produced you again demanded to hear more methodology. I again explained the methodology to you. I explained that scholars don't waste their time trying to explain exactly how they got from point A to point A.01, and then I provided a perfect example of how these variations occur. Have you responded to my fifth attempt to provide the methodology you asked for?

Albright offered no explanation or analysis to support a conclusively opinion, and Cacheman's scholar offered no explanation or analysis to support his opinion.

Nope. But you did have this to say about my repeated explanations of exactly what is going through the heads of these scholars and my request that you respond to it:

I really don't care to.

You're a joke and I'm done with your anti-intellectual crap.

What some folks don't quite get is that there is not a one-for-one correspondence in the sounds represented by the symbols in different alphabets.

The Cyrillic alphabet (used by Russian and some other Slavic languages) is based upon the Greek, but has some unique symbols to represent sounds present in Slavic languages that don't occur (or at least don't occur frequently) in Greek . . . which is why Greek developed no symbol for the particular sound. ж and ц are two examples of those unique Cyrillic letters. In transliterating a Russian word containing those letters into Greek, a method of representing those sounds as best one can needs to be arrived at. Sometimes the transliteration is clumsy and folks arrive at different conclusions of how best to transliterate because of the lack of one-for-one correspondences. At some point, however, a concensus is arrived at (but in 1829 there was no consensus of how to transliterate Egyptian into Latin characters).

Add to this difficulty the fact that Egyptian is only mostly phonetic and that no vowels are represented in hieratic/hieroglyphic writing, and you see the difficulty in representing Egyptian words using Latin letters.

Moreover, vowels tend to shift over time (via umlaut/ablaut/other), sometimes quite rapidly, in any language, such that vowels appearing in a word as pronounced in 3,500 BCE may bear little resemblance to the vowels in the same word as pronounced in 75 BCE or 150 CE.

Thus Pi-ankh-y and Pa-anch-i, having a near one-to-one correspondence in vowels (only the initial vowel is different) and an absolute one-for-one correspondence of consonants (only the spelling of transliterated "ankh" is different), one can have high confidance that they are the same word -- in this case the same proper noun.

It's crystal clear, isn't it?

[cksalmon]

Nope. But you did have this to say about my repeated explanations of exactly what is going through the heads of these scholars and my request that you respond to it:

You're a joke and I'm done with your anti-intellectual crap.

Hey guysâ??

Flies...honey...vinegar. Simliar clich

[USU78]

C.K. "blessed are the peacemakers" Salmon

Are you sure you heard him correctly? I thought it was "cheesemakers."

[consiglieri]

I used an Ed Decker tract in 1980 by giving it to my LDS cube mate. It was titled ' A Love Letter to Moroni'.

The next day my engineering acquaintance had a fairly negative view of Ed Decker.

Ed Decker has justly earned every fairly negative view he has received. By the way, if it is the pamphlet I am thinking of, it is titled, "From Moroni with Love," a classic anti-Mormon tract.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cksalmon]

Are you sure you heard him correctly? I thought it was "cheesemakers."

You're just reading your pro-Wisconsin bias into the text.

CKS

[consiglieri]

cksalmon:

Personally, I'm not sold on the coincendence line of argumentation in these particular instances, though I'm not sold on BoM's antiquity in light of these apparently Egyptian names, either.

I appreciate your repeated reluctance to buy into the "coincidence line of argumentation in these particular instances," and I respect the fact that you are "not sold on BoM's antiquity in light of these apparently Egyptian names, either."

I think we are narrowing down the possibilities.

If the names are not coincidence; and if the Book of Mormon is not ancient; then the only other option I can think of is that Joseph Smith (or somebody else) learned of these Egyptian names at some point prior to 1829 and intentionally inserted them in the Book of MRMN in order to give it verisimilitude.

This brings to bear the following two issues:

Were these names known in English publications by 1829, and were said publications available to Joseph Smith or contemporaries?

If it can be demonstrated that these Egyptian names were not in a format available to Joseph Smith or contemporaries prior to 1829, the only other options left will be (1) coincidence; or, (2) ancientness.

On which side of the fence would you then fall, CKS?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. I am eager to hear your thoughts about my posts on Mormon/Meriamon and Aha/Aha!