That’s out of the question!
They would have rejected even an article by their own teacher.
I’ll explain why.
In the text entitled “Admonitions of Ipuwer” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papy..._criticism ) the author, Ipuwer, describes the fall of the gods. Describes what happened to the land when the gods were defeated by their servants and slaves and lost control of the state they had created.
The “Admonitions” are thought by some to describe the situation that followed the breakdown of the central government at the end of the Old Kingdom, and by others that the account is historically impossible.
According to Miriam Lichtheim for example: In Sum, the “Admonitions of Ipuwer” has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other historical situation. It is the last, fullest, most exaggerated and hence least successful, composition on the theme “order versus chaos.”
Ipuwer, however, openly accuses the creator god for having created bad quality humans and, considering himself a god, wishes for the end of humanity:
If only this were the end of man,
No more conceiving, no births!
Then the land would cease to shout,
Tumult would be no more! (Col. V)
Yet, he knows that birth is necessary for the production of the slaves:
But since giving birth is desired, grief has come and misery is everywhere.
So it is and it will not pass, while these gods are in their midst.
Seed comes forth from women of mankind; it is not found on the road. (Col. XII)
Lo, the great hunger and suffer,
Servants are served . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . lamentations.
Lo, the hot-tempered says:
“If I knew where god is I would serve him.” (Col. V)
Lo, why does he seek to fashion <men>, when the timid is not distinguished from the violent? (Col. XII)
At this point Miriam Lichtheim comments as follows: This section is interesting for being a criticism of the sun-god, the creator of gods and men, who is chided for passively permitting people to kill each other, instead of intervening.
It is obvious that Ipuwer is accusing god for his inability to create proper, obedient slaves and not for observing without intervening.
So, suppose I present a paper to the Egyptologists for peer-reviewing claiming that Ipuwer describes the fall of the gods. They will not even read the first line!!
Alan Gardiner is the author of the “Egyptian Grammar” and the teacher, the tutor of the translators. In their translations they constantly make reference to his Grammar in order to justify their renderings.
Gardiner wrote an entire book, “the Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage” (http://www.archive.org/stream/admonition...0/mode/1up) translating and analyzing Ipuwer.
Here are his comments on the above passages (page 80 of the book).
The passage becomes both intelligible and rational if we accept the view that it refers to Re. Nor is that all; in this case it will be seen to accord well with the famous story according to which Re, having become aware of the plots which men made against him, conceived the plan of destroying them, but relented at the last moment and forbade the godden Sekhmet to compass their complete destruction.
Thus we seem now to be in possession of tangible evidence that the clue afforded by the mention of the name of Re is the real key to the whole section. To my mind the decisive proof is given by the expression “Xt tpt”, the first generation in 12,2. The philological note on this expression will show that it is very nearly synonymous with “sp tpy” (first time) the phrase which was technically used by the Egyptians to designate the age following immediately upon the creation of the world, the age, in fact, when Re was king upon earth.
[…]
It is been said that if Re had known all the evils which would spring up in consequence of men’s wicked natures, he would have destroyed men and so have prevented the subsequent disasters.
The theme of the god who having become aware of the plots which men made against him, conceived the plan of destroying them, appears in the various traditions as a different myth but what counts is the sense of the myth. The original text of Ipuwer (the one we have is a copy) may had been written before the myth that Gardiner mentions had evolved to contain… godden(?) Sekhmet, and thus the original author had in mind only the relevant information.
And finally, the seed that comes forth from the women of mankind dates the events and brings down to earth the gods!
Gardiner is anti-academic in the Ipuwer case as well as in the extremely important case of the term Ba. “Unfortunately” as Louis Zabkar wrote, “Gardiner’s trend of thought has not been followed in subsequent discussions of the meaning of the Ba.”
An academic scholar need not have low iq to cause damage to humanity, it suffices to be a believer!
They would have rejected even an article by their own teacher.
I’ll explain why.
In the text entitled “Admonitions of Ipuwer” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papy..._criticism ) the author, Ipuwer, describes the fall of the gods. Describes what happened to the land when the gods were defeated by their servants and slaves and lost control of the state they had created.
The “Admonitions” are thought by some to describe the situation that followed the breakdown of the central government at the end of the Old Kingdom, and by others that the account is historically impossible.
According to Miriam Lichtheim for example: In Sum, the “Admonitions of Ipuwer” has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other historical situation. It is the last, fullest, most exaggerated and hence least successful, composition on the theme “order versus chaos.”
Ipuwer, however, openly accuses the creator god for having created bad quality humans and, considering himself a god, wishes for the end of humanity:
If only this were the end of man,
No more conceiving, no births!
Then the land would cease to shout,
Tumult would be no more! (Col. V)
Yet, he knows that birth is necessary for the production of the slaves:
But since giving birth is desired, grief has come and misery is everywhere.
So it is and it will not pass, while these gods are in their midst.
Seed comes forth from women of mankind; it is not found on the road. (Col. XII)
Lo, the great hunger and suffer,
Servants are served . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . lamentations.
Lo, the hot-tempered says:
“If I knew where god is I would serve him.” (Col. V)
Lo, why does he seek to fashion <men>, when the timid is not distinguished from the violent? (Col. XII)
At this point Miriam Lichtheim comments as follows: This section is interesting for being a criticism of the sun-god, the creator of gods and men, who is chided for passively permitting people to kill each other, instead of intervening.
It is obvious that Ipuwer is accusing god for his inability to create proper, obedient slaves and not for observing without intervening.
So, suppose I present a paper to the Egyptologists for peer-reviewing claiming that Ipuwer describes the fall of the gods. They will not even read the first line!!
Alan Gardiner is the author of the “Egyptian Grammar” and the teacher, the tutor of the translators. In their translations they constantly make reference to his Grammar in order to justify their renderings.
Gardiner wrote an entire book, “the Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage” (http://www.archive.org/stream/admonition...0/mode/1up) translating and analyzing Ipuwer.
Here are his comments on the above passages (page 80 of the book).
The passage becomes both intelligible and rational if we accept the view that it refers to Re. Nor is that all; in this case it will be seen to accord well with the famous story according to which Re, having become aware of the plots which men made against him, conceived the plan of destroying them, but relented at the last moment and forbade the godden Sekhmet to compass their complete destruction.
Thus we seem now to be in possession of tangible evidence that the clue afforded by the mention of the name of Re is the real key to the whole section. To my mind the decisive proof is given by the expression “Xt tpt”, the first generation in 12,2. The philological note on this expression will show that it is very nearly synonymous with “sp tpy” (first time) the phrase which was technically used by the Egyptians to designate the age following immediately upon the creation of the world, the age, in fact, when Re was king upon earth.
[…]
It is been said that if Re had known all the evils which would spring up in consequence of men’s wicked natures, he would have destroyed men and so have prevented the subsequent disasters.
The theme of the god who having become aware of the plots which men made against him, conceived the plan of destroying them, appears in the various traditions as a different myth but what counts is the sense of the myth. The original text of Ipuwer (the one we have is a copy) may had been written before the myth that Gardiner mentions had evolved to contain… godden(?) Sekhmet, and thus the original author had in mind only the relevant information.
And finally, the seed that comes forth from the women of mankind dates the events and brings down to earth the gods!
Gardiner is anti-academic in the Ipuwer case as well as in the extremely important case of the term Ba. “Unfortunately” as Louis Zabkar wrote, “Gardiner’s trend of thought has not been followed in subsequent discussions of the meaning of the Ba.”
An academic scholar need not have low iq to cause damage to humanity, it suffices to be a believer!
"Culture is memory"
Yuri Lotman
Yuri Lotman
