Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

KV62 West Wall Niche Question
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sah, uppercase "S" is indeed a god, but sah with a lowercase "s" is the ancient Egyptian word for what we call a mummy. It is the actual body, the khat, after it has been embalmed and wrapped, with all the ritual that is involved in the process. btw, they never believed in the resurrection of the physical body, except for Osiris. Their belief in a cyclical rebirth and death, the rising and setting of the Sun/Ra, has no element of physical resurrection for mortals who have died. The death of the body was permanent and the "soul" moved to another form of existence, though tethered to the sah. At the end of time everything dies, even the gods, there is no Judgement Day, no rising of the bodies of the dead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
they never believed in the resurrection of the physical body, except for Osiris. Their belief in a cyclical rebirth and death, the rising and setting of the Sun/Ra, has no element of physical resurrection for mortals who have died. The death of the body was permanent and the "soul" moved to another form of existence, though tethered to the sah.


I think this along with the current understanding that they really believed and appealed to
mystical magic will ultimately have to be reconsidered.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's no evidence of any kind to give credence to the notion that they could have believed in the resurrection of the body. However, when looking at the Ptolemaic creation of Serapis, a fusion of Osiris, Ptah via the Apis bull, and a number of Hellenistic gods, it could be argued that the Christians borrowed the belief in resurrection of the soul from Egypt via the cult of Serapis, or indeed a number of other cults, and as a selling point for their new religion invented the resurrection of the body. We look back into the past via a number of filters which can cloud our view, but in the matter of a belief in the physical resurrection of the body we can be sure that the ancient Egyptians never held this belief.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The corpse (h3t) did not resurrect. The b3 and k3 formed the immortal, transformed self, the akh (3ḫ)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
...but sah with a lowercase "s" is the ancient Egyptian word for what we call a mummy.....

mummy is scḥ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The "c" was supposed to be superscript, but this forum will not let me edit my posts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

irt-akhu wrote:
Ikon wrote:
...but sah with a lowercase "s" is the ancient Egyptian word for what we call a mummy.....

mummy is scḥ

In normal English usage, sˁḥ is written down and pronounced as sah. In German, for instance, sach is used.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And, as a general side-comment, we should not read anything into the apparent similarity of 'saH' and 'sAH' in transliteration. Different semi-vowel in the middle... would be something like trying to link "sad" and "sod" in English.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irt-akhu
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 28 Nov 2019
Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon - how did you get the 'c' to be superscript? I tried pasting from Word and a bunch of other programs and it wouldn't do it. Also, are you guys able to edit your posts? The forum will not let me edit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No we don't have the ability to edit our own posts-- only moderators can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I trust and respect your linguistic understandings exceed my glances into a 'How to Read...' book and defer to your points.

I think there is a general misunderstanding to mistake for reality the Egyptian metaphors that use spiritual references.

I recognize the textual (hieroglyphics) accounts apparently and openly state and seem to declare a religious / spiritual system of belief and that many (most?) ancient Egyptians likely believed and practiced a support of those beliefs.

But, the actual syrtem of information involved distinct layers (hiearchy). The mythical texts and spiritual aspects are intentionally ambiguous to be understood in different contexts.

To the non-iniate (common believers), the myths were regarded as factually real.
To the officials ("priests", initiates et al), the myths were metaphors to convey different or more information.

I have tried to demonstrate a sample of this understanding with the 'mystical, magical' oars that were in KV62 as they inform about a positional reference system in the burial chamber.
The oars can be related to myth but inform about a technical system of reference.
I noted location of the oars demo earlier in this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

irt-akhu wrote:
Ikon - how did you get the 'c' to be superscript? I tried pasting from Word and a bunch of other programs and it wouldn't do it. Also, are you guys able to edit your posts? The forum will not let me edit.


Copy and paste works for me, but even in normal latin O34 D36 and V28 is expressed as sah, and the determinative A53 can be ignored as we know the context.

It's harsh not being able to edit, but it does make you think about what you have written before clicking submit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 392

PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maat wrote:

But, the actual syrtem of information involved distinct layers (hiearchy). The mythical texts and spiritual aspects are intentionally ambiguous to be understood in different contexts

The texts you are referring to are what are collectively known as the "Books of the Dead", originating in the Pyramid Texts, originally only for the burial of a king, and then adapted and used as the Coffin Texts, for anybody who could afford a coffin, and many could not. These texts were expanded into the Amduat, Book of Gates and other texts for use in the tomb of a king. With the exception of the "Enigmatic Books of the Netherworld", found on the second shrine in KV62 and on the walls of the tombs of Ramesses VI and IX, these texts were not ambiguous and we can today read and understand them. The "Enigmatic Texts" are not fully understood, hence their name, but their purpose was to confuse the demons in the Duat.

So, the "Books of the Dead" are clear, and in no part of them is a belief in the resurrection of the body. If you wish, you could try to discern such a belief in the "Enigmatic Books of the Netherworld", but the central scene in them deals with the fusion of the king/Osiris/Ra and the rebirth of the sungod, not the resurrection of the physical body of the king, and certainly not that of mere mortals.

This paper by John Darnell is a very good reference https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/152643/1/Darnell_2004_The_Enigmatic_Netherworld_Books_of_the_Solar_Osirian_Unity.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon, thanks for the pdf link. I will access it when I get to a proper machine.
I recognize that some texts became grouped over time into sets that are today regarded as books. Again, I defer to your familiarity with the extent of specific books and their content of texts.
While ancient words have been compiled into a lexicon to facilitate grammatical translation, contextual meaning and intent of a costruct (phrase/passage) is not always to be understood as literally written.
An old American exression, "chew the fat", is ambiguous in that it can be taken as literal or metaphorical (to mean talk and converse).
The Egyptian texts might be lexically accurate while metaphor is mistaken to be literal in meaning. This is the kind of ambiguity I imply.

The BOD texts [Faulkner] are clearly translated to be read but the "spells" are in significance and intent ambiguous.

The 42 negative affirmations (spell 160?) for example are puzzling until recognized as instructive guidance about negative inclusions in many ancient Egyptian constructs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A negative inclusion (I have found) in the context of ancient Egypt is a significant reference
invoked by its exclusion from mention.

The concept bends the mind.
An important reference is made known by its absence.
The reference cannot be known until after it is recognized as missing.

The negative affirmations teach about this concept.
A thing is affirmed by negative reference.
That which is not mentioned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 3 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group