 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Ancient History / January 2006Help needed for Nefertari
I need to know the meaning of the text behind Nefertari http://www.jmrw.com/Abroad/Egypte/Louxor/Nefertari_Senet.htm Thanks a lot > I need to know the meaning of the text behind Nefertari > http://www.jmrw.com/Abroad/Egypte/Louxor/Nefertari_Senet.htm > > Thanks a lot Roughly, "The Osiris, Great Wife of the King, Mistress of the Two Lands, (Nefertari, beloved of Mut)| triumphant [/mAa xrw/], [who is] Osiris, the Great God." The implication is that Nefertari, by winning her senet game, has transformed and become equated with Osiris as a deity. HTH. Regards -- Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, SSEA, ASOR Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] University of Oxford Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com The text says: wsir Hmt nsw wrt nfrtiri mAa xrw xr wsir nTr aA "The Osiris, Great King's Wife, Nefertari, True of Voice with Osiris, the great god" "mAa xrw" or "true of voice" is an epithet for all deceased persons. Also, every dead individual was called "the Osiris", being now identified with that god of death and resurrection. > The text says: > > wsir Hmt nsw wrt nfrtiri mAa xrw xr wsir nTr aA > > "The Osiris, Great King's Wife, Nefertari, True of Voice > with Osiris, the great god" Technically, it's wsir Hmt nsw wrt, nb.t tAwy(nfrtiri mry-n-Mwt)| mAa xrw wsir nTr aA "(The) Osiris, Great Wife of the King, Mistress of the Two Lands, (Nefertari, favoured/beloved of Mut)|, triumphant (Hannig 316a-b), (as) Osiris the Great God." The /xrw/ is complete in itself (see Hannig 1995: 316a, 3rd example, as to glyphs), and there is no additional /xr/ in the statement. It is also for possible for the living to be /mAa xrw/ as well (See Hannig 1995: 316b, and Wb II: 15, no. 6, 7, in reference to the gods and to the king at war as "triumphant," as well as referring to the winner of a senet game, which is what Nefertari is playing in the scene (No. 8)), so it's not always synonymous for "deceased," although the phrase is seen more often in a funereal context. Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, SSEA, ASOR Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] University of Oxford Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com MarianneLu...@aol.com wrote: > The text says: >> wsir Hmt nsw wrt nfrtiri mAa xrw xr wsir nTr aA >> "The Osiris, Great King's Wife, Nefertari, True of Voice >> with Osiris, the great god" >Technically, it's >wsir Hmt nsw wrt, nb.t tAwy(nfrtiri mry-n-Mwt)| mAa xrw wsir nTr aA >"(The) Osiris, Great Wife of the King, Mistress of the Two Lands, (Nefertari, favoured/beloved of Mut)|, triumphant (Hannig 316a-b), (as) Osiris the Great God." > >The /xrw/ is complete in itself (see Hannig 1995: 316a, 3rd example, as >to glyphs), and there is no additional /xr/ in the statement. Yes, I left out the second part of Nefertari's name "mry n Mwt", but you couldn't be more wrong about the rest. If you had really looked at your own reference from Hannig you would have seen that when the term "xrw" is actually spelled out, which it seldom is except with a single sign, there is no /r/ in any of the examples. Because the sign is already phonetic "xr". It is only followed by "w". So that should tell you that "xr" is a separate term in this inscription. But that is not the worst mistake you have made. Look on page 610 and you will find out what the preposition "xr" is all about. It is "with" or "near" in this case. Every time a person is described as being "as" a god, the term used is "mi", such as "mi ra" or "mi mnTw". However, the way you have translitered, there is no preposition present at all! You are merely implying "as". Because you are reading this wrong, you find no other choice. Also, Nefertari has already been called "the Osiris" in the beginning of the phrase. She would not be so styled twice. "wsir nTr aA" refers to the masculine gender. Nefertari is only called "the Osiris" in the beginning because that refers to any dead person, but she cannot be "as" this god because a female is never likened to a male deity in that manner. A queen would not be styled "nTr aA" but "nTrt aAt" with feminine endings. Unless it was someone like Hatshepsut who claimed pharaonic and therefore masculine by implication titulary. >It is also for possible for the living to be /mAa xrw/ as well (See Hannig 1995: 316b, and Wb II: 15, no. 6, 7, in reference to the gods and to the king at war as "triumphant," as well as referring to the winner of a senet game, which is what Nefertari is playing in the scene (No. 8)), so it's not always synonymous for "deceased," although the phrase is seen more often in a funereal context.> Well, it is always "mAa xrw" meaning "deceased" in a tomb! You are over-interpreting this ordinary scene. Nefertari is merely shown playing at Senet, something she would normally have done. Since queens did not work at anything, it was difficult to portray such a lady as doing anything but taking her leisure. But a game of Senet needed an opponent and the opponent is not shown. Just omitted. But that is certainly not to imply that she was "triumphant" over anybody, even a god, in that scene. Katherine Griffis wrote: >Technically, it's wsir Hmt nsw wrt, nb.t tAwy(nfrtiri mry-n-Mwt)| mAa xrw wsir nTr aA "(The) Osiris, Great Wife of the King, Mistress of the Two Lands, (Nefertari, favoured/beloved of Mut)|, triumphant (Hannig 316a-b), (as) Osiris the Great God." > To nip a probable long argument in the bud--yes--let's get really technical. First off, *technically* the feminine epithet should really be "mAat xrw". But the preposition "xr" is there--no question at all. No "as" whatsoever present--not even implied. James Hoch [prominent philologist] explains it better in his grammar than Gardiner does in his. On page 345: "xr (prep.) with, by, near, (a god or king); under (a king's reign); (speak) to (a king);(come) to, before (a god or king)." Those are the usages of "xr", exactly as written by Hoch and the parentheses are not mine. I also have the book "House of Eternity: The Tomb of Nefertari", full of pictures of texts. In her tomb, the queen is said to be "xr wsir" or "with Osiris" all over the place. An example is the phrase "wsir Hmt nsw wrt xr wsir nTr aA" or "the Great Royal Wife with Osiris, the great god". Since "mAat xrw" is not even included in this phrase, it should be only TOO OBVIOUS that "xr" is a preposition in all instances. If it was a fuller spelling of "xrw", there would be a /w/-- but there is none. Now this same book states that Nefertari is playing Senet by herself "as her unseen opponent symbolizes Fate, who must be defeated in order to gain immortality in the hereafter". Well, I am not so sure the AE's even believed in an entity called "Fate", but I am content to leave "symbolic interpretations" to others. > MarianneLu...@aol.com wrote: > > The text says: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "mry n Mwt", but you couldn't be more wrong > about the rest. And, of course, the /nb.t tAwy/ epithet, but let's go to your main contention. >If you had really looked at your own reference from > Hannig you would have seen that when the term "xrw" is actually > spelled out, which it seldom is except with a single sign, > there is no /r/ in any of the examples. Amazingly, my copy of Hannig does, in fact, show the D21 /r/ sign in EXACTLY the example to which I referred, in the 3rd example of 316a (first listing) and at Wb II: 15, glyphs example (a). Perhaps you should look again: U4-D36-X1:D21-P8 As D21 = /r/, perhaps you are just missing it. Because the sign is already > phonetic "xr". It is only followed by "w". Not so in the above example, from Hannig or the Wörterbuch. So that should tell you > that "xr" is a separate term in this inscription. But that is not the > worst > mistake you have made. Look on page 610 and you will find out what the > preposition "xr" is all about. It is "with" or "near" in this case. IF, and we are just speaking hypothetically, /xr/ is placed alongside /mAa xrw/ the meaning is "through X" with X signifying a deity, such as Osiris. So one may be "triumphant" or "justified" _through_ Osiris as the Great God, but it does not have the sense of 'with' (bei), as you state in your reliance upon p. 610b of Hannig. This is also covered in 316a (first listing, No. 2 definition), and at Wb II: 15, (B), which shows that the /xr/ must be a separate preposition added to the phrase. > Every time a person is described as being "as" a god, the term used is > "mi", such as "mi ra" or "mi mnTw". However, the way you have translitered, > there is no preposition present at all! You are merely implying "as". > Because you are reading this wrong, you find no other choice. Also, Nefertari has > already been called "the Osiris" in the beginning of the phrase. She would not be so > styled twice. In this case, she is as "triumphant" over death "as" Osiris was; that is, a simile, not an equivalent. > "wsir nTr aA" refers to the masculine gender. Nefertari is only called > "the Osiris" in the beginning because that refers to any dead person, but she > cannot be "as" this god because a female is never likened to a male deity in that manner. If Nefertari called the "Osiris," she is already likened to a male deity. However, I am not saying that she is compared as to BEING Osiris. She is triumphant over death _as_ Osiris was. > >It is also for possible for the living to be /mAa xrw/ as well (See > Hannig 1995: 316b, and Wb II: 15, no. 6, 7, in reference to the gods [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But that is certainly not to imply that she was "triumphant" over > anybody, even a god, in that scene. Since /mAa xrw/ is a term used to refer to the winner of a senet game, as listed in Wb II: 15, A. III (possibly the reference here is a pun, as Nefertari is deceased and thus /mAa xrw/ over death as well, who also is the unseen opponent in the senet game), it's appropriate term and not only refers to the dead. This interpretation is not strictly mine, but is fairly well-established in Egyptological studies, such as Peter Piccione noted: "As the Egyptian religion evolved and fascination with the netherworld increased - reflected in such ancient works as the Book of Gates, Book of What is in the Netherworld, and portions of the Book of the Dead - the Egyptians superimposed their beliefs onto the gameboard and specific moves of senet. By the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty in 1293 BC, the senet board had been transformed into a simulation of the netherworld, with its squares depicting major divinities and events in the afterlife. <...> Tomb paintings of people playing senet also underwent a striking change in the Eighteenth Dynasty. No longer included among the daily life scenes, they now appeared in a decidedly religious context of ritual scenes, some of which were from the Book of the Dead. The descriptive annotations or captions accompanying these paintings took on a similar change away from the practical and toward the religious. Tomb inscriptions at this time refer to the player as a deceased contestant playing in the necropolis against an invisible adversary - his own soul. This may explain why so many New Kingdom tomb paintings show seemingly opponentless senet players. (The graphic on the right is a wall painting in a Theban tomb shows Nebenma'at the 'Servant in the Place of Truth', playing senet with his wife Meretseger. The text reads 'sitting in the pavilion, playing senet, knowing three and finding two.') During the reign of Queen Hatshepsut (ca. 1498 BC). the famous female pharaoh, the decoration of some boards also began to evolve into what would ultimately become clearly religious symbols. The 3-2-1 sequence became three birds, two men, one man, and the 'bad' became a water trap. By the reign of King Seti I (1291-1279 BC) the 'men' in these last squares became 'gods' in a sequence of three, two and one god. By the Twentieth Dynasty (ca. 1185-1075 BC), these squares would also express direct supplications, modeled after writings on the netherworld, that the player might rise into heaven with Re-Horakhty. (The graphic on the left is a mural painting from the Hathor Temple at Abou Simbel. It pictures Queen Nefertari, wife of Ramses II (1292-1225 BC)." Source: http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/~museum/Archives/Piccione/ In Search of the Meaning of Senet Peter A. Piccione Archaeology, July/August 1980, Pages 55-58 You also said: >Now this same book states that Nefertari is playing Senet by herself "as her unseen opponent symbolizes Fate, who must be defeated in order to gain immortality in the hereafter". Well, I am not so sure the AE's even believed in an entity called "Fate", but I am content to leave "symbolic interpretations" to others. < The Egyptians did have a strong sense of "fate" and deified it in the divine form of Shai. The discussion of the concept and divinity can be found in Quaegebeur, J. 1975. _Le Dieu Égyptien Shaî dans la Religion et L'Onomastique_. Orientalia Louvaniensia Analecta 2. Leuven: Peeters. However, I tend to agree with Piccione that the "invisible" adversary of funereal senet scenes of the 18th-20th Dynasties tend to be either one's own soul or the invisible entity of permanent death if the deceased did not meet all obstacles presented by the game, which was a summary of the deceased's afterlife journey. Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, SSEA, ASOR Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] University of Oxford Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com > Amazingly, my copy of Hannig does, in fact, show the D21 /r/ sign in > EXACTLY the example to which I referred, in the 3rd example of 316a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > As D21 = /r/, perhaps you are just missing it. The above SHOULD read: U4-D36-Aa1:D21-P8 All other information remains as before. Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, SSEA, ASOR Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] University of Oxford Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com > MarianneLu...@aol.com wrote: > > The text says: > >> wsir Hmt nsw wrt nfrtiri mAa xrw xr wsir nTr aA > >> "The Osiris, Great King's Wife, Nefertari, True of Voice > >> with Osiris, the great god" Griffis: > >Technically, it's > >wsir Hmt nsw wrt, nb.t tAwy(nfrtiri mry-n-Mwt)| mAa xrw wsir nTr aA Nope. It certainly is was not, is not and will never be. Griffis: > >"(The) Osiris, Great Wife of the King, Mistress of the Two Lands, > (Nefertari, favoured/beloved of Mut)|, triumphant (Hannig 316a-b), (as) > Osiris the Great God." > Sex change for Nefertari? > >The /xrw/ is complete in itself (see Hannig 1995: 316a, 3rd example, as > >to glyphs), and there is no additional /xr/ in the statement. > Yes, I left out the second part of Nefertari's name > "mry n Mwt", but you couldn't be more wrong > about the rest. Griffis: >And, of course, the /nb.t tAwy/ epithet, but let's go to your main contention.> That's because I only began at the part where you went wrong! >If you had really looked at your own reference from > Hannig you would have seen that when the term "xrw" is actually > spelled out, which it seldom is except with a single sign, > there is no /r/ in any of the examples. Griffis: >Amazingly, my copy of Hannig does, in fact, show the D21 /r/ sign in EXACTLY the example to which I referred, in the 3rd example of 316a (first listing) and at Wb II: 15, glyphs example (a). Perhaps you should look again: > What's truly amazing is that you don't even see which direction the signs are going in Hannig's book. Left to right! On every single page in the entire dictionary. The "xr" would NEVER be written after the sign P8. You can look in every damned dictionary that you have, but you'll never find "xr" after P8, as you seem to believe it is in the Nefertari text. However, sometimes P8 is used as a determinative when the term "xrw" is written out phonetically. But, usually, it is just P8 plus /w/. Check it out. In the texts in Nefertari's tomb, P8 stands for "xrw"--alone, as it does very, very often in all funerary texts. Griffis: >U4-D36-X1:D21-P8 But that isn't the order of the signs in the Nefertari text, is it? >As D21 = /r/, perhaps you are just missing it. LOL! Me: > that "xr" is a separate term in this inscription. But that is not the > worst > mistake you have made. Look on page 610 and you will find out what the > preposition "xr" is all about. It is "with" or "near" in this case. Griffis: >IF, and we are just speaking hypothetically, /xr/ is placed alongside /mAa xrw/ the meaning is "through X" with X signifying a deity, such as Osiris. So one may be "triumphant" or "justified" _through_ Osiris as the Great God, but it does not have the sense of 'with' (bei), as you state in your reliance upon p. 610b of Hannig. This is also covered in 316a (first listing, No. 2 definition), and at Wb II: 15, (B), which shows that the /xr/ must be a separate preposition added to the phrase. Did you see this? Obviously not, so I have to repeat it: James Hoch [prominent philologist] explains it better in his grammar than Gardiner does in his. On page 345: "xr (prep.) with, by, near, (a god or king); under (a king's reign); (speak) to (a king);(come) to, before (a god or king)." Perhaps Hoch left out "through"--but there is nothing *hypothetical* about all this IS THERE? Because now you suddenly noticed that Hannig gave as his TWO examples on 316 a "mAa xrw xr Osiris" as "bei", meaning "near or with", and "mAa xrw xr Osiris as "durch" meaning "through"! Since Hannig, himself states that it can be "bei", who the hell are you to say that it can't possibly mean that? You can take your pick, but the fact remains that you were dead [as Osiris] wrong to maintain that Nefertari is styled as "who is" Osiris or "as" Osiris and that the "xr" was not a preposition and was part of "mAa xrw", as you continued to assert even in the post I am replying to, EVEN THOUGH YOU FINALLY NOTICED HANNIG'S EXAMPLES-- but of course only chose the one *you* prefer and refuse to believe the other possibility exists, even though Hannig makes it plain that it does! You should be apologizing for your blatant error, not weaseling about *hypothetically*--as though you might still be right! Which you never have been so far in any discussion of Egyptian language I've ever had with you to this very day. Me: > Every time a person is described as being "as" a god, the term used is > "mi", such as "mi ra" or "mi mnTw". However, the way you have translitered, > there is no preposition present at all! You are merely implying "as". > Because you are reading this wrong, you find no other choice. Also, Nefertari has > already been called "the Osiris" in the beginning of the phrase. She would not be so > styled twice. Griffis: >In this case, she is as "triumphant" over death "as" Osiris was; that is, a simile, not an equivalent. > Oh--still seeing that missing "as" there, are you? Too bad for you. Me: > "wsir nTr aA" refers to the masculine gender. Nefertari is only called > "the Osiris" in the beginning because that refers to any dead person, but she > cannot be "as" this god because a female is never likened to a male deity in that manner. Griffis: >If Nefertari called the "Osiris," she is already likened to a male deity. However, I am not saying that she is compared as to BEING Osiris. She is triumphant over death _as_ Osiris was.> But not according to that inscription! You can interpret all this any way you like, but there is still such a thing as Egyptian grammar and you are not exempt from having to abide by its rules. As to why Nefertari is shown playing at Senet, I have already said I have no interest in that. Egyptian "religious symbolism" is not my area of fascination. So you can blab on all you like about that. But I wouldn't advise you to try to correct *me* when it comes to the Egyptian language. It never paid off in the past for you and never will. I wrote: >James Hoch [prominent philologist] explains it better in his grammar than Gardiner does in his. On page 345: "xr (prep.) with, by, near, (a god or king); under (a king's reign); (speak) to (a king);(come) to, before (a god or king)." Perhaps Hoch left out "through"--but there is nothing *hypothetical* about all this IS THERE? Because now you suddenly noticed that Hannig gave as his TWO examples on 316 a "mAa xrw xr Osiris" as "bei", meaning "near or with", and "mAa xrw xr Osiris as "durch" > For the benefit of the original poster, who might now, if he is not already sick and tired of the whole thing, be tempted to believe that Queen Nefertari--in that scene in which he is interested--has been likened to the god Osiris, let me clarify this. Once again, dead persons, male or female, regardless of status, were called "the Osiris". This came to be a "mode of reference"--just like certain beautiful women are styled a "goddess" today or in times past "a pocket Venus". Also, in days of yore, a handsome man was called an "Apollo". What it actually meant is the deceased was "dead as Osiris but subject to resurrection in the same manner". Just as the other examples were "beautiful or subject to adoration as Venus or Apollo". But that, by no means whatsoever, implies that this decedent had actually become a god or had now achieved the same status as "wsir nTr aA" or "Osiris the great god". And that is what the preposition "xr" emphasizes. All those English prepositions above could be said with other Egyptian terms, as well. Also, one might wonder why a single word "xr" could mean all those different things. The answer is that just what "xr" meant in a certain phrase could usually be deduced from the gist of the rest of the phrase. But here's the main thing: "xr" existed to show a difference in status between one person or entity and another. That's the whole purpose of "xr". That's why it usually appears in the context of an ordinary mortal vis a vis a king or a god. But sometimes it is even used in the instance of where one person is great and the other insignificant--and some interaction between them. However, in the case of "xr wsir", the meaning of the preposition "xr" is not so clear, although it still retains its purpose of "distinguishing between the status" of one and another. Because of the nature and purpose of "xr", I am still inclined to think it means "with Osiris". And that is also why I think Hoch omitted "through" from his examples, even though Hannig or someone else had evidently found it plausible. Because I don't think think the dead individual would find resurrection "through" the god Osiris but "with" him or "before" him in the sense that the deity is present there in the Afterlife. Osiris represents resurrection but, in his dead [but germinating in order to find rebirth--that's why he has a green face] state, does nothing to facilitate anyone else achieving that. He is just the symbol of the process. Anubis, the god of the death and embalming, would be the true facilitator god. > I don't think think the dead individual would find resurrection > "through" the god Osiris but "with" him or "before" him in the sense that the deity is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > just the symbol of the process. Anubis, the god of the death and embalming, > would be the true facilitator god. "Resurrection" (actually, rejuvenation) is acquired from the Judgement of the Dead, over which Osiris presides. Without his final actions as to the fate of the deceased (after the confirmation of the weighing of the heart by Anubis to the god Thoth, who announces the results to the 42 assessor deities of the afterlife) in the Hall of Judgment, there is no way the deceased is considered /mAa xrw/, "triumphant," over permanent death, and may travel with Ra into their rejuvenation in the afterlife. In fact, Osiris is an active participant in the rejuvenation of the dead, and in the punishment of the damned. In Spell 30b, the assessor gods deliver their judgment to Osiris as to the result of the Weighing of the Heart, and direct that the deceased have offerings issued to him in the presence of Osiris and that that god give to the deceased a place in the afterlife for his own: "...a grant of land be established in the Field of Offerings as for the Followers of Horus." (Faulkner translation of pAni, 1985: 28) In the Ramesside Book of Gates this "great god" is referred to "he who is at the head of his Court of Magistrates" and to whom Ra says: "O great one, who is head of his court of magistrates, call upon the souls of these righteous ones. Let them rest upon their seats in order to be a court of magistrates (consisting) of them who came forth through me." (Zandee translation (1969):295) The importance of Osiris in the actual judgment and punishment of the dead can also be found in Hornung, E. 1994. Black Holes View from Within: Hell in Ancient Egyptian Thought. Diogenes 165, 42/1: 133-156. Reference: Faulkner, R. O. and C. Andrews 1985. _The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead_. Austin: University of Texas Press/British Museum. Zandee, J. 1969. The Book of Gates. In Unknown, Ed., _Liber Amicorum: Studies in Honour of Professor Dr. C. J. Bleeker_: 282-324. Studies in the History of Religions (Supplements to Numen) XVII. Leiden: Brill. Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, SSEA, ASOR Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] University of Oxford Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com >In fact, Osiris is an active participant in the rejuvenation of the dead, and in the punishment of the damned. In Spell 30b, the assessor gods deliver their judgment to Osiris as to the result of the Weighing of the Heart, and direct that the deceased have offerings issued to him in the presence of Osiris and that that god give to the deceased a place in the afterlife for his own: "...a grant of land be established in the Field of Offerings as for the Followers of Horus." (Faulkner translation of pAni, 1985: 28) > But Osiris is not the one who presides over the weighing of the heart of the deceased. That is the function of Thoth and he is shown in vignettes of Books of the Dead standing by the scales in his capacity, depicted as an ibis-headed deity or in the form of a baboon. Sometimes he holds his writing materials in his hands, as though to make a notation as to what the balance indicates. Osiris, as I stated before, is present. He is shown sitting on his throne, holding his scepters as "King of the Underworld". He never does one single thing except sit there. The rest of the "protector gods", the ones who are in charge of the body or body parts of the deceased are there. As well as the goddesses Maat, Isis and Nephthys, the "mistress of the underworld". The BOTD of Ani states "O Lord of the Underworld, I am in thy presence. There is no sin in me, I have not lied wittingly. nor have I done anything with a false heart. Grant that I may be like unto those favored ones who are round about thee, and that I may be an Osiris, greatly favored of the beautiful god and beloved of the lord of the world, I the true royal scribe, who loves him, Ani, triumphant before the god Osiris." >In the Ramesside Book of Gates this "great god" is referred to "he who is at the head of his Court of Magistrates" and to whom Ra says: "O great one, who is head of his court of magistrates, call upon the souls of these righteous ones. Let them rest upon their seats in order to be a court of magistrates (consisting) of them who came forth through me." (Zandee translation (1969):295) > Well, who is at "the head of the magistrates"? Probably Thoth. Because it states "I am Thoth who have made the Osiris victorious over his enemies on the day of weighing" and then goes on to mention a long litany of his functions and deeds on behalf of the deceased. Also, "Orders Ra Thoth to make victorious the Osiris over his enemies; what was ordered for me did Thoth". The other denizens of the underworld have some speeches, too. But Osiris says and does nothing. He is not even one of "the divine chiefs" who make "mAa xrw wsir r xft=f" or "the Osiris triumphant over his enemies". There is no real case at all for the deceased becoming "a triumphant one" THROUGH Osiris. It all occurs in the presence of this god, "before" him or "with" him in that same sense. The preposition "xr" LITERALLY means "with". You can consult Gardiner on that easily enough. And that is all I have to say about that. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.