> For someone who claims to be a student of this
> discipline, we wonder why Mr Petry would still
> refer to these later texts as 'the book of the
> dead', when in fact we know what the ancient
> Egyptians actually called them, and others.
> Perhaps we could educate Mr Petry with the
> following: "The Book of Coming Forth By Day".
This is a semantical argument and is beneath you.
I still refer to a place "Peking, China" even though I know full well that this isn't the word the Chinese would have us use this week. I just get tired of changing words all the time at the behest of people who don't even speak my language. . Maybe if Egyptologists want me to use their words they should get together and decide what word they want people to use.
> What Mr Petry calls 'deadifying', others more in
> tune with the discipline would call
> 'cross-referencing the grammar/terminology'.
Yes. You nailed it. They translate and interpret words in terms of the book of the dead and this is a highly flawed methodology. If the PT were otherwise understood it would make sense and I do it myself since I do understand it, but the PT is not understood by Egyptologists and it's not understood because they've turned it into something it is not. It is NOT the book of the dead. The book of the dead is a confusion of the language in the PT. Even the nature of words themselves changed. Words were representative in the ancient language and the meaning (what was represented) was confused and replaced with a word that was symbolic. This is why you don't understand. You must understand every word in the PT in terms of other words in the PT or you get the same confusion that was shared by the authors of the book of the dead.
> example, when we see a word written in English
> from our modern era, and see the same letters of
> the English alphabet used in an English text from
> 500 years ago, chances are they are the same word,
> regardless how much the language has been
> 'altered' by natural influences.
We know what these words meant 500 years ago and it's not that important anyway with modern language. If you know what the author was talking about the words are not important. We know what Shakespeare meant so we can struggle through a few words that are less transparent.
> In fact,
> hieroglyph scholars are well aware of the altered
> dialects from the Old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom,
You believe it's merely a dialect because the assumption that the language and religion never changed is foundational to Egyptological knowledge.
Unfortunately this assumption is in error.
> Mr Petry is very clear with contradictions within
> his own paragraph. First he says it was originally
> 'science', and his own 'science' (agreed-upon)
> view is that a person becomes an imperishable star
> thus will live forever.
It would help if you tried to figure out what I'm thinking. This would be most easily accomplished by taking my words literally and reading nothing into them. I'm well aware people think I contradict myself but the reality is in almost all cases I merely contradict what they think I said.
> Sounds pretty
> ethereal/abstract to me. But then Mr Petry
> immediately follows by lampooning such an idea as
> 'superstitious'. His coherence of thought is lost
> from sentence to sentence.
A reasonable person, especially one who has anthropomorphized reality itself and thinks in these terms, would agree that living forever as a memory is not an example of superstition. It is the only way any of us can survive past our deaths so far as modern or ancient science has determined.
> Strange how it is presented here why Mercer does
> not qualify as a good resource, let alone the last
> one standing we should ever reference (" ... not
> the claptrap that was done later ... "), and yet
> Mr Petry continues to defy it, actively telling
> readers to ignore any other scholarship.
I don't think I said ignore it. I doubt I ever said this. If I did say it I misspoke.
What I said was Allen's translation is claptrap. This doesn't mean he isn't a serious scholar with a great deal of knowledge, it merely means that this knowledge has been filtered through a belief in stinky footed bumpkins. If he factored out this belief he might well be the first to make a proper "translation" of the PT. I don't doubt that he is a real scholar but being a scholar has never in human history made someone right.
And the fact I'm nobody doesn't make me wrong.