Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It is evidence that has been corroborated by facts
> discovered during proper archaeological
MJT> exploration of the sites.

Well, not really! Archaeologists haven't found any evidence of the inscription ...

(MJT)
> > Did Herodutus report absolutely verbatim what
> he
> > was told by the priests?
> > We don't know.
>
(AS)
> We do know. He did not. He says so. He reports
> to the best of his recollection what they told
> him, and also reports to the best of his
> recollection what he himself saw with his own two
> eyes.

No, we don't know. Herodotus merely gives a resumé of what the interpreter said (the text doesn't even say "priest" at this point). We can only presume that Herodotus and the interpreter were doing their best ... but we don't know.

MJT> > Did the priests tell Herodutus what the wall
> > writings actually said and meant, or did they
> tell
> > him what they sincerely believed the writings
> said
> > and meant?
>
>
AS> Since they could read the words on the wall, you
> are accusing them of intentionally misleading
> Herodotus.

On the contrary, MJ makes an excellent point. Who was the interpreter, the "hermêneus"? Was he actually a priest himself? And, whether he was or he wasn't, how well and/or accurately would he have understood the hieroglyphics of Khufu's era?

AS>> You pretend you know they were lying to him.
> Please share with us how you know this... or
> retract your defamatory claim.

It's a question of how we are to understand this glimpse of the past: nothing to do with defaming.

> > What you choose to see as acceptable evidence
> is
> > therefore nothing more than hearsay*,
>
>
> Herodotus reported what he knew was hearsay as
> such. He also reports what he saw with his own
> eyes as such. You seem to be convinced he was too
> stupid, or too dishonest, to know the difference.

There are many reasons why misunderstandings could have arisen. There is no particular reason to suppose that either Herodotus, or the interpreter, was either stupid or dishonest. But either of them might have been mistaken ... We just do not know. In another post, you mentioned an inscription on the outside of Menkaure's pyramid. What does that inscription say?

MJT
> > But this is no reflection what-so-ever (as
> you
> > well know) on Herodotus or the priests.
> >
>
>
>
> Saying it is "no reflection...on Herodotus or the
> priests" is pandering doubletalk.

No, it isn't. It's a perfectly fair comment.

You have called
> one or both of them liars.

We've had this discussion before. In order for Herodotus or the Egyptian priests or interpreters to be termed "liars", it would have to be shown that they were intentionally misrepresenting a situation. The whole point is that it's perfectly possible for confusion and misunderstanding to arise uninentionally, even assuming everyone's best efforts.

I said above you would
> try to weasel out of it. Now you've proved me
> right.

This sort of insulting comment is irrelevant in this context. Discussion of the difficulties involved in how best to understand Herodotus is not "weaselling".

> Herodotus witnessed them reading the writing on
> the wall of the pyramid.

Well, someone told him that they were interpreting what Herodotus says was written there ...

The Egyptians of this
> time could easily read hieroglyphic.

I've asked above what the situation actually was ... It would be interesting to have more information on this point.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me