3733Re: [ANE-2] Re: Richard Steiner and the London Medical Papyrus
- Jan 29, 2007Ariel,
Let's compare Steiner with Mercer and Faulkner at Utterance 232, the first one of Steiner's.
Steiner transcription: m mti m mti mi mti mi mti 333 mwt.f sp-2 mi mti mi mti
Steiner translation (imperatives are plural): "Come! Venom! Come! Venom! See! Venom! Ho, Spittle, Spittle! His mother! His mother! See! Venom! See! Venom!"
Faulkner: To say the words: 'mtj mtj mtj ! tjw his mother, tjw his mother! mjtj mjtj
You are washed, o desert. (Let there be) water, there is no dust!'
Mercer: To say: Mti, Mti, Mti, Mtyi,
Tiw, his mother, Tiw, his mother, Miti, Miti.
Be thou watered (washed), o desert; (let there be) water, not sand.
Let's compare the first alleged Semitic line, 5 = utterance 235 begin:
Steiner: k-w 3-3-3 i-im-im h-w i-m-im h-w (both h's with dot underneath)
Steiner translation: Utterance of Spittle, Spittle, mother of snake, mother of snake
Faulker: To say the words: 'You Ah ah ah! Filler!
Mercer: To say: Kwtiw, 'Imhw, 'Imhw (both h's with dot underneath)
The end of 235 (Steiner line 7) is also allegedly semitic:
Steiner: n-t i t-ti-i i-3-i "Leave, my lover, lion!"
Faulker: The two which are! I, ia, i!
(Mercer leaves it blank)
236 (Steiner line 8) has what Steiner says is "house" beyt in transcription
k-b-b-h i-ti-i-ti-i bi-i-ti-i "Come, come to my house!"
Faulker: To say the words: 'Kebebhititi-biti-shes, son of Hifget, that is your name!'
Mercer: To say: Kbbhititibiti Ss, son of Hifg.t, that is thy name. (large s with hatchek, small s with overslant, H with underdot)
At 232 Steiner's Demotic translation deviates sufficiently from Mercer-Faulkner to make one wonder if they had the same text. At 235 crux is Im-hw, which Steiner reads "mother of snake" with im for "mother" as iin Hebrew and hw for "snake" since Eve (hwa) and snake both tempted Adam. Seems a bit circuitous. The strongest case is 236: iti biti "Come to the house!" but where is the bit about "Hifget, that is your name" that Faulker-Mercer have? At line 7 Steiner has "lion" (semitic ari) for i-3-i against Faulker-Mercer, both of whonm have "lion" with Steiner at line 22 for m3.
"Ariel L. Szczupak" <ane.als@...> wrote:
At 02:21 AM 1/29/2007, Andrew Fincke wrote:
>Thanks, Ariel,Oh, in case it wasn't clear - these are the *online* resources I
>Steiner, page 2:
>"Robert Ritner, tenured professor at U Chicago, brought to my
>attention the texts before you, including pieces that most of the
>experts didn't dare translate since their discovery more than a
>century ago. Even Ritner, a world class expert in Egyptian magic,
>didn't understand all of them. Therefore he asked me, 'Can any of
>this be Semitic?'"
>gives the wrong impression. I don't recall any engagement in his
>speech with Mercer or Faulker et al.
found, not necessarily the exact references used by Steiner. Online
resources are what they are - e.g. the full Mercer translation of the
pyramid texts is online because it's old and its copyright has expired.
But both versions leave certain parts of these passages
transliterated and not translated, as Ritner said. And while the
versions differ in the translation of specific Egyptian words, they
agree on the general subject and tone of these passages and their
interpretation is consistent with what Steiner says about these
passages. For me these translations were helpful. I don't have access
to Steiner's exact references and the "meshing in" of the Egyptian
and Semitic parts in content and style is an important part of
Steiner argument. So even though these are not the exact translations
that Steiner used, they were enough for me to quicly check on this
part of his argument.
[100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]
Ariel L. Szczupak
AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91401
Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>