ralfellis

3rd Intermediate Period, Kenneth Kitchen.
http://www.liv.ac.uk/sace/organisati...le/kitchen.htm


.

ralfellis

Eh? I thought all of these were well known by everyone (even if the links between them were not known).

Do you not know that Jews wear curly side-locks of hair? How strange.

Ok, let's start with which ones you do NOT know. Come on, please do demonstrate the holes in your understanding, so I can fill them in.


.

ralfellis

Temper, temper, you are making it look like you have lost the argument again.

Even if you are insistent on taking the 'ff' from Hiram Abiff, as he has been called in Masonry for centuries if not longer, you still end up with two names - the biblical Hiram Abi and the Egyptian Heru-m-Atif, with both meaning "Hiram Father" (Heru-m Father).

And does it not strike you as odd that Masonry got the 'f' correct, long before these glyph-names were discovered at the Silsileh quarry?


.

spin

It seems to me you are incapable of providing references for your rubbish.

As you don't seem to remember: I have Kitchen's book and there is nothing like the name you mention in his indices.

You have provided no argument, just some bullshit claims that you cannot defend.

It's sad, really, to think that you have wasted so much time in such utter nonsense.

In the bolded section above, it seems to me that you are knowingly misrepresenting reality. Your hope is that the name you claim to be that of the "architect of Psusennes I" is something like Heru-em-atef, which would be "Horus is father". This is certainly not, as you must be aware, "Hiram Father".

Which names of relevance here precisely are you talking about? What are the scholarly references? You have been asked several times to fulfill your responsibilities and supply references for what you claim regarding the name you originally provided as "Heru'm-Atif", that this was the name of the architect of Psusennes I. You have not done so. This is in direct violation of the forum guidelines: "1.c) Cite exact references for the materials you give as evidence, so that readers can consult the material themselves." So, once again, "Please specify a scholarly publication that mentions him, the year of publication, the page number." Oh, and the form of the name used in the source, please.

ralfellis

Most people read the book first, and then comment from a position of knowledge. Would you make such demands of Professor Robert Eisenman?


Kitchen's reference is brief. Try Breasted instead.

His majesty decreed that command be given to the house
of Harakhte, chief of works of the Lord of the Two Lands,
Hiramsaf, triumphant, to conduct every work (...) the choicest
(stone?) of Silsileh, to make very great monuments for
the house of his august father, Ammon-Re, lord of Thebes.
There returned in safety to the southern city (Thebes), to the
place where his majesty was, the ... chief of works in House
of Kheperhezre Setepenre (Sheshonq I) in Thebes ... Hiramsaf,
triumphant. He said, All that thou didst say has come to pass,
O my good Lord; none sleeping at night nor slumbering
by day, but building the eternal work without ceasing.
Ancient Records of Egypt, James Breasted. IV p 347.


The only trouble with Breasted, is that he has assumed the 'f' is short for 'saf' (son) when it is actually short for 'atef' (father). But the meaning of the name does not change. 'Son of Horus' is the same as 'Horus is my Father'.

In which case, we end up with a chief architect called Hiram and a title suffix that invokes paternity from the deity (Atif). Thus we have the Egyptian Heru-m-Atif or the masono-biblical Hiram Abiff, and both were chief architects of the king in the 10th century BC.

In addition, the name for Hiram Atef contains the djed pillar glyph. While the biblical Hiram Abiff was famed for making pillars of bronze.

Furthermore, the former of these architects was building the Het-ka Ptah (Temple of Ptah), while the latter was building the Hey-kal Yahweh (Temple of Jerusalem). Do you not think it a teensy-weensy bit coincidental, that the historical and biblical accounts record such a similar character, who held such a similar royal commission?




It actually means 'Hiram is my Father', but I was trying to make the title succinct, so you could understand it. And does it not strike you as odd that Masonry got the 'f' in this name correct, long before these glyph-names were discovered at the Silsileh quarry?



.

spin

Ground control to ralfellis, can you hear me, ralfellis? I specifically asked you back in posts 75 and 77 of this thread whether you were talking about the name "Haremsaf". It seemed to be the only vaguely similar name to "Heru'm-Atif". It's only taken you the last 20 posts to confirm that you have mangled yet another name beyond recognition in order for you to make it as similar as you could to the masonic nonsense form Hiram-Abiff.

The name you are mangling actually appears twice in the source you are referring to as Ḥ r-m-s3f and usually rendered Haremsaf. R. A. Caminos (JEA 38, p.56) provides a commentary on the text and gives no difficulties regarding its preservation. In fact there is a hieroglyphic transcription of the stela which clearly provides the name Haremsaf at the bottoms of columns 47 & 51 (and the hieroglyphic transcription shows the damaged areas of the inscription). It is certainly not the way you misrepresent the name. You have deliberately perverted the form of the name as we have seen you do in other situations so often in order to make it look more like what you desire.

In which case nothing of the sort. The name is Haremsaf. You are misrepresenting it for your own agenda that has nothing to do with scholarship.

Haremsaf was the chief of works for Shoshenq I (943-922) and the inscription is dated by Kitchen to 924.(p.301) Psusennes I reigned 1047-1001 and you specified that it was Psusennes I when above you referenced his daughter Maatkare Mutemhat.(p.59) This Haremsaf is a century too late for your purposes.

It certainly does not contain a djed pillar in the name. See Plate XIII in the article cited above.

You are simply incorrigible, for here you are purveying yet another load of codswallop with the same vacuous name game playing. You may have gulled yourself in this process, but your methodology is evidently bankrupt. Do you have no self-awareness in what you are doing?

These forced coincidences are rubbish. Don't you think it a teensy-weensy bit suspect that everything you're presented here falls to shit with very little pushing? Yet you come back with more of the same sort of nonsense time and again and looking into the mangled names we find your hand has done all the fudging of appearances and there is no significance in the similarities. Don't you think that a teensy-weensy bit suspect?

You are not using the Silsila quarry inscription, which clearly talks of Haremsaf. You have taken Shoshenq I's chief of works and reworked him into Heru'm-Atif the architect of Psusennes I. This is one of your more tortuous disfigurations.

Once again you fall flat on your A, being seen to simply make stuff up. Shame on you, ralfellis. Shame.

ralfellis

But plate XIII in vol 38 is a transcription, not the original, and it is a poor transcription too.

If this was the 'amulet' glyph, how do you propose that this means 'son'? There is no such spelling. And it does not mean 'protection either'. So what does it refer to? I think you will find that the Torah's account gives us the right answer - it means 'father'.

If you look at a picture of the original glyphs (the list of architects is the best), this is not an amulet, but a djed pillar. And after the pillar is a stroke, which generally suggests that the djed is being used as a determinative.

Sorry, I don't have a picture of it. I'll look for one.



Incorrect. I conflated Psusennes I and II, because the biblical record only has one David. And the historical king-list actually works much better when you delete Psusennes I and conflate him with Psusennes II. And all the named scraps of linen support and reinforce this revision.

Thus Pharaoh Psusennes IS in the correct era and chronology.




You mean - 'incorrectly rendered as Haremsaf'. Where is the aleph and/or ayin in the glyphs for Haremsaf? You're making it up.

In reality, the glyphs and pronunciation for Horus are well known, and they are invariably transcribed as Heru. This would make the name here Heru-m-?-f, not Hare-m-?-f. And the form with Heru followed by 'em' is well attested to, which strongly suggests that this was the meaning of the name for Heru-m-Atif. And there are not many suffixes that can follow Heru-m, and these include 'saf' (son) and 'atif' (father).

In comparison, the biblical versions we have for this name are: Hira-m-Abif (1Ki 5:1) and Hura-m-Abif (2Ch 2:11)** - which is closer to the original than the 'classical' pronunciation.




** Full name given in 2Ch 2:13. Given as yba Mrwx or Hiram Abi. Some Bibles translate this name directly as 'Hiram Abi', including the 1890 Derby and the 21st century KJV. The Masons, of course, add an 'f' to this giving 'Hiram Abif'.



.

spin

A scholarly transcription, as I went on to say: "here is a hieroglyphic transcription of the stela which clearly provides the name Haremsaf at the bottoms of columns 47 & 51 (and the hieroglyphic transcription shows the damaged areas of the inscription)".

The name as I've indicated is repeated in the inscription, so the glyph is not questionable. It functions purely for its phonetic value. You'll notice the horned viper glyph on the following line each time to finish the name.

Perhaps you can point me to a scholar who claims that the glyph cannot be used in the way it is used in col.s 44 & 51 of this inscription.

It is not the meaning of the glyph but its phonetic value, which is normal in the use of hieroglyphics. Would you normally force a chick glyph to indicate a chick or would you take it for its phonetic value, "w", eg in the name of Tutankhamun?

Most people use the transcription as uncontroversial.

So Akheperre is Tyetkheperure. That makes sense, doesn't it? Dealing with Egyptology by forcing it into your biased notion that it reflects the bible.

The conflation of Psusennes I and II, you should take up with the scholarly world who are quite happy with the evidence that points to two separate rulers in two separate historical contexts.

I call that fantasy. You take a record of a chief of works for Shoshenq I and insist that the person was also under Psusennes (I & II conflated) without any evidence to back you up.

Let's go through this.

• First you mangle the name from Haremsaf (Ḥ r-m-s3f) to Heru'm-Atif.
• Then you force him into a previous reign without evidence.
• Then you get rid of the fact that there were to pharaohs by conflating them.
• Further you equate this mangled name to another mangled name which originally read הורם אבי, "Huram my father (abi)" by turning the epithet "my father" into part of the person's name though it doesn't reflect naming traditions in Hebrew.

This reflects the manipulator of the data, not the data.

Oh, you're going to play pot looking for kettle, when there is nothing controversial in the representation of Ḥ r-m-s3f as Haremsaf, as seen by all the scholarly sources, such as Breasted, Kitchen and Caminos. You are pushing for manipulating the glyphs them representing them so they appear more like the masonic garbage you depend on.

"Invariably" is ridiculous. Even heard of Heruemheb or Hatheru? The name of our man is invariably represented by English speaking scholars as Haremsaf.

Oh, bullshit. You can't even give the glyphs of the name properly. Then you cannot give a contracted form of the theophoric. Them you can't give the syllabic form for the verb "em". You are deliberately misrepresenting the name. This is because of your a priori crap theory which doesn't allow you to deal objectively with the scholarly data.

Utterly false. This is the name in Hebrew: הורם אבי.

That'll vaguely work as a transliteration, though we normally write the transliteration from left to right in English.

They can do whatever silliness they like. It is not evidence for the original text which you have already provided in transliteration. As I have asked you in the past: "Are you going to admit that the use of "abi" in 1 Chr 2:13 is no different from the examples I've provided regarding Saul abi in 1 Sam 19:2 and David abi in 1 Kgs 2:24?" You still haven't answered this question and I don't expect you will, because you'd have to admit that you are trying to sell a crock of shit.

Depending on the Masons is great scholarship, isn't it?

Cheerful Charlie

I believe what I believe because it makes sense. The NT and Josephus tell us that there were any number of would be messiahs and wandering prophets who came to a bad end. Jesus was just one of these. I can easily believe that. The accretions of mythology that were built around him later are obviously just that, myths. Contradictory and foolish in large part. Nothing to do with the Nicene creed, more to do with what Josephus tells us about wandering prophets at that time in the area.The dead messiah became a soterological god to return from the dead. Even many Romans believed Nero would someday return, its nothing new. New religions sometimes do become powerful fairly rapidly, look at Mormonism. But that does not mean Smith was not a liar.

Cheerful Charlie

ralfellis

As you know, stele can be quite worn. Significantly they do not show a picture in that dissertation. I cannot find a photo of that stele, but you can see the general condition of inscriptions at the Silsileh site from this web-page:
http://egyptsites.wordpress.com/2010...gebel-silsila/




Err, I have a feeling you do not know anything about the Egyptian language. Glyphs are either phonetic or determinatives, and so you can use a chick to indicate a chick.

Take for example apt meaing 'duck'. This has a duck glyph at the end, but this does not imply that the word is aptsa (the duck being the phonetic 'sa'). No, the duck here is a determinative meaning 'duck'.



No. The Egyptologists have got this all wrong. Why would Psusennes I be listed as Psusennes and also as Akheperre?
In reality, Akheperre Setepenamun actually referred to Uasorkon the Elder (because that was his name), and not to Psusennes I (because Psusennes I did not exist).

And BTW, I am not trying to make anything 'fit' the biblical account.
I am an Atheist, I don't try to make things fit the Bible. It just so happens that it does.




They simply followed Manetho in assuming there were two Psusennes. If Manetho has got it wrong, then so do the Egyptologists.



I think you fail to note that this is not simply one architect who is similar.

In reality:
The pharaoh has the same attributes as King David (star and city).
The pharaoh has the same as King David (Duat, Duad).
Their daughter is the same in both cases (Maakare MuTamhat).
Their army commander is the same in both cases. (Joab-endjed, Joab)
Their ancestors are the same in both cases. (about 8 of them)
Their city is the same in both cases. (Zoan, Zion)
Their temple is the same in both cases. (Hetka, Heykal)

And the Tanis monarchs did indeed rule Judaea and Israel.
Ergo, King Psusennes (I/II) is King David.




As you know (or should know) the name Horemheb comes from the Greek pronunciation, and not the Egyptian.

The original pronunciation for Horus was actually Heru. The glyphs used are 'rope (h), face (her), mouth (r), chick (u) and a determinative of Horus. And this is pronounced as Heru. Thus Horemheb should be pronounced as Heruemheb.


Besides, are you really saying that Tuthmosis was the correct Egyptian pronunciation? Or Amenophis? Or Akhenacheres? I think someone should tell you that the Greek pronunciations of most Egyptian titles and names were highly barstardised.




Eh? Are you saying that Heruem Atif cannot be contracted over time to Huram Abif? I think the spoonering of a word from Heru to Hura is well attested to.




Err, your point being? How do you propose to pronounce this name?
The conventional method is Huram Abi, to which the Masons have for centuries added an 'f' giving Huram Abif. Which is exactly what I said.
(*edit* Please note my next post, where the Tanakh does indeed use the title "Abif")


I quote from the 1890 John Nelson Darby Bible:

And now, I send a skilful man, endued with understanding, Huram Abi. 2Ch 2:13


To which the theologians Adam Smith and John Gill add:

His name appears to have been Hiram, or Hiram Abi.

Abi, we render "my father", his surname, that is, "Huram Abi"; and this is the opinion of several learned men and is very probable. For it is certain that his name was Huram or Hiram, 1Ki 7:13, and so he is called "Huram his father", or "Huram Abif", 2Ch 4:16.


The modern translation of "Huram my father's" is quite meaningless. My father's what, exactly? It is said that this implies he belonged to his father (he worked for his father). But the Egyptian alternative of "is my father" makes a deal more sense. This is then rendered as Heru-em-Atif, or Horus is my Father. Most pharaohs and aristocrats were the son on one god or another.


.