Anthony,



> > The living king was identified with Geb, not
> > the deceased one.
> >
> >
>
>
> No bearing on the discussion at hand.


It was you who suggested that Chris had accidentally written Osiris when he meant Geb. I think that a mistake like that should be corrected, since it actually has bearing to the discussion, the one you were suggesting!



> > You should know that the Great Ennead of
> Iunu
> > remained the same throughout the dynatsic
> times,
>
>
> Apparently not... that or it didn't exist in prior
> to late Dynasty V.


Not existing and existing compared to chaging on a "whim" are two completely different things. I said, that the Great Ennead didn't change throughout the dynastic times, and I still say so. Can you show me differenbtly?




> > and no "whims of the king" could change
> that.
>
>
> Obviously it did. How else was it created in the
> first place?


Again, I was not talking about "creating" but changing, because you suggested that Khentiamentiu may have been in the Great Ennead before Osiris took his place in the PTs!!! Now, either you belive that the Great Ennead did exist before the PTs or it didn't, which is it? Or do you plan to change it according to your needs in each posting?

Are you quite seriously suggesting that the creation of the Great Ennead happended due to a "whim" of one king? Yes or no?


> > Had
> > Khentiamentiu been included in that Ennead,
> then
> > we would know about it in the PTs, where he
> is
> > present,
>
> Not if he had been replaced by Osiris in that
> role. Then we would see exactly what we see.
> Well, not quite, because the parts of the PTs that
> include Osiris were all written in Dynasty V.

He replaced Osiris where?

What is your evidence about Osris being written into The PTs during the 5th dynasty?




> > wouldn't we. But no, he is not included
> > in it, is he? Because with Khentiamentiu
> present,
> > the PTs still tell us that the Great Ennead
> of
> > Iunu is: Atum, Shu, Tefnut, Osiris, Horus,
> Seth,
> > Isis and Nephthys.
>
> The PTs are a melding of old and new texts. The
> parts with Osiris are new... clearly. The parts
> with Khentiementu are old... just as clearly.


Again, what is your evidence of Osiris being "new"? The fact that there is no written evidence of him before that time? So you don't agree with the Egyptologists (Griffith included) who estimate the beliefs concerning Osiris being much older? Why not?




It
> is very easy to not get the two confused when
> transcribing new texts. Rosalie David has an
> excellent summation of this time frame (Dynasty 5)
> and how there was a great "fusion" of old and new
> beliefs that ended up being cross-represented in
> the corpus we call "The Pyramid Texts".


Nobody is denying that there is amic of rachaic, old and rather new in the PTs. However, if a bulk of those utterances had been written during the 5th dynasty, then surely we'd see more of Re in those, don't you think. If not whay not?


Which utterances does David suggest as being older than the others?



>
> The Ennead of Iunu was, in all likelihood, unheard
> of before Dynasty V.



What is suggesting this "likelihood"?



>
> > Why aren't you protesting about Isis turning
> up in
> > the Ennead, after all, she makes her first
> written
> > appearance in the Pts also, hmmm?
> >
>
>
> Because I was talking about Osiris. I don't have
> as much background info on Isis, either. Don't
> really care that much, since neither of them were
> of the least bit importance to the Dynasty IV
> pyramid builders.


How about sAH and spd.t? Are they of no importance also? They are both mentioned with Nephthys (ring a bell?) in the utterance estimated to be one of the oldest in the PTs (216). I'd think, that since this utterance obviosuly was written before the 4th dynasty, and sAH did become Osiris and spd.t Isis, you'd want to take a look at this.





> > I agree. So much wor the great cult of Ra
> before
> > the 5th dyansty!

> Iunu is not the same as the cult of Re. You're
> throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


However, in the records the mentiones of Iunu and Re start at the same time: 5th dynasty.




In my
> attempted research of this timeframe, I have
> really tried to differentiate between what is fact
> and what is interpretation of disparate evidence,
> sometimes based on erroneous assumptions. Iunu is
> one of those things that has been surprisingly
> represented in most texts on the subject.


I agree. Completely. And I must say, that I am veryy disappointed in many serious Egyptologists to still today write about the great solar city of Iunu during the 4th dynasty (as in obelisks and pyramids)!


> However, the fact that Iunu may not have existed
> prior to Dynasty V is completely irrelevant, since
> we know the cult of Re most certainly existed.

> DjedefRE is irrefutable.

I don't really agree with this. I think Djedefre adopting the title is due to a change in the kingship itself. As I wrote above, the evidence says the cult begun only during the 5th dynasty.



On the other hand, why would they move it? I
> don't
> > find this very plausible, actually.
>
>
>
> They would move it to help capture the legitimacy
> of it and grant it to the new location. I guess
> the question should be asked, why wouldn't they?


Are there any other examples of shrines having been moved to other locations and temples?





>

Ritva