Why Middle East?

[dtango]

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!

[The Grand Nudger]

Tyrant god-kings like tyrant human-kings always believe they are being plotted against, and they consistently respond very poorly to their suspicions in both cases. In imagining gods that are very much like ourselves, why would such a narrative surprise you? In proposing that these myths have a bearing on factual history in the manner in which you suggest, why is the lack of evidence not troubling to you? Are we to accept the claims made by every myth simply because they made them? I hardly think so. If your theories would be immediately dismissed by those who make it their business to explore these subjects in earnest, there's more than likely a reason for that, and it probably doesn't have much to do with any discovery you feel you've made.

To continue a discussion along lines that are familiar to us, how does your theory address pantheons which are not revolted against, those that actively pursue our interests and we theirs, as communal imperatives (The Norse and Gaelic pantheons immediately spring to mind, as do the many "assistant/familiar" dieties of the Native N/S/C American pantheons. No such discord exists, no such revolt is plotted. Why)? How would your theory handle the African myths of men who were the equals or betters (most certainly not slaves, to say the least) of their "deities" in the most popular of stories?

How would your theory handle the evidence uncovered in Botswana, by a Professor Sheila Coulson of Oslo University and printed in "Apollon" (a peer reviewed research publication printed by the same) describing ritual and religious practices that are 70,000 years old (older than the earlier "oldest" known practices, found in Europe, and dated to 40,000 years old). Did your egyptians have in their possession a fucking time machine? Again, I hardly think so. I've often criticized your "theory" for having too wide a scope than your arguments (even if they are given to you in full, for the sake of discussion) can support. Will you ever address this? After reading this (and I assume you would) are you going to return to me with stories of how we were the slaves of a giant magical python in reality? That pythons engaged in eugenics and sometimes interbred with us? This would be surprising news to me indeed.
(this is old news btw, for all I know older sites have since been discovered)

[dtango]

Tyrant god-kings like tyrant human-kings always believe they are being plotted against, and they consistently respond very poorly to their suspicions in both cases. In imagining gods that are very much like ourselves, why would such a narrative surprise you?

What surprises me is not the narrative but the way it is treated by the Egyptologists.
You may not have “Tyrant god-kings” with the god idea absent. You have to find out how the idea of gods came to be and then resort to deification. That’s common sense, pal!

In proposing that these myths have a bearing on factual history in the manner in which you suggest, why is the lack of evidence not troubling to you?

You cannot find something that you are not looking for! There is plenty of evidence buried below plenty of excuses.
The people all around the earth are purifying themselves in a lot of different ways, from ridiculous to criminal. Why do they do it?
Why do they kill their firstborns?
Why are they artificially deforming the skulls of their children?

Because the myths, they themselves created about gods, taught them what the gods were expecting from them!!

To continue a discussion along lines that are familiar to us, how does your theory address pantheons which are not revolted against, those that actively pursue our interests and we theirs, as communal imperatives (The Norse and Gaelic pantheons immediately spring to mind, as do the many "assistant/familiar" dieties of the Native N/S/C American pantheons. No such discord exists, no such revolt is plotted. Why)?

It is unrealistic to expect to find the entire story in every culture. It had been broken into bits and pieces out of which myths were created. Moreover, after the events in the Near East and the dispersal, the various peoples had different experiences. The Germanic tribes (the gods) were forced to leave nice and warm Mesopotamia and seek new land in Northern Europe. There they met the Neanderthals and it is the story of their encounter with them that they relate in their myths. The Israelites (the only group of the gods that insisted in remaining in the Near East) relate the story of the extinction of the Eastern Neanderthals. The Indians of the Americas accomplished an unbelievable feat in going through the Canadian ice sheets and yet, all of them retained parts of the original story and especially the theme of the messengers which is the concluding one.

How would your theory handle the African myths of men who were the equals or betters (most certainly not slaves, to say the least) of their "deities" in the most popular of stories?

The African myths are pure; uncontaminated by philosophy/theology. They retained the custom of the “God of the village,” as the expression is in the Egyptian texts, up to the time of the colonizers. Frazer has recorded some very interesting reports of men living just outside of the village and playing god.

How would your theory handle the evidence uncovered in Botswana, by a Professor Sheila Coulson of Oslo University and printed in "Apollon" (a peer reviewed research publication printed by the same) describing ritual and religious practices that are 70,000 years old (older than the earlier "oldest" known practices, found in Europe, and dated to 40,000 years old).

“The shaman, who is still a very important person in San culture, could have kept himself hidden in that secret chamber. He would have had a good view of the inside of the cave while remaining hidden himself. When he spoke from his hiding place, it could have seemed as if the voice came from the snake itself. The shaman would have been able to control everything. It was perfect.” The shaman could also have “disappeared” from the chamber by crawling out onto the hillside through a small shaft.”

Even if the Professor is right in imagining the above ritual, it does not mean that it was a religious practice. For religion the god is a prerequisite, and for god the prerequisite is anthropogony (creation of humans).

Did your egyptians have in their possession a fucking time machine? Again, I hardly think so.

According to Plato the Egyptian priest told Solon that they kept records of their and the other nations’ history for 9,000 years, meaning that the Egyptian priesthood was 9,000 years old at the time of Plato. How could they have kept track of the time passed?
Herodotus, who visited Egypt a little after 449 BCE, wrote that the priests showed him 345 statues of the archpriests. He thus calculated the age of the Egyptian priesthood to be 11,340 years (341 generations).

I've often criticized your "theory" for having too wide a scope than your arguments (even if they are given to you in full, for the sake of discussion) can support. Will you ever address this? After reading this (and I assume you would) are you going to return to me with stories of how we were the slaves of a giant magical python in reality? That pythons engaged in eugenics and sometimes interbred with us? This would be surprising news to me indeed.
(this is old news btw, for all I know older sites have since been discovered)

If instead of criticizing from the very start you chose to discuss the matter without prejudice, you may have changed attitude by now.
And, of course, to discuss you do not jump from one topic to another. You stay on one topic until it is exhausted.

[The Grand Nudger]

11,000/70,000. 11,000/40,000. Looks like your favorite mythmakers were just a wrung on the ladder, no source at all. We had religion before we got there, and it made it's way into Europe before Egypt was a twinkling in anyone's eyes. That would make the middle east a waystation of the absurd, not a well-spring.


I have a prejudice towards demonstrable claims. You should too, at least if you wish to offer explanations. "If only you weren't skeptical you would believe". Well, too bad.

"If only your claims could be substantiated, I wouldn't be skeptical".