Talk:Amen/Archive 4

2010 discussion

He means that it is only allowable if it supports his views. I already removed a reference because the link pointed to sutheby.com instead of a reliable source. DJ Clayworth put it back even though the link pointed to nothing.

I love the wikipedia christian censorship nazis

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.208.164 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

MY FAVORITE PART ABOUT THIS ENTIRE AMEN ARTICLE IS THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE DONE ALL THEY CAN TO CENSOR THE FACT THAT CHRISTIANS BORROWED THEIR CONCEPTS FROM EGYPT INCLUDING THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

WHY DO YOU GUYS INSIST ON RIGOROUSLY DENYING MENTION OF THE EGYPTIAN GOD AMEN / AMUN WHEN EVERYONE WITH AN ENCYCLOPEDIA CAN FIGURE IT OUT FOR THEMSELVES AND SEE YOU GUYS ARE NOT TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.208.164 (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what I believe or why I did things. Do you actually have any references to back up what you say? If so, please add them. If not then please don't insult other people. Please readWikipedia:Civility. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Extended passages in "all caps" are often taken as sign of inexperience in on-line discussions, and are not generally welcomed in Wikipedia.

2) In the vast majority of cases, the etymologies of Semitic "content words" (i.e. nouns and verbs and their derivatives) proceed by means of abstract consonantal roots (i.e. triliterals, quadriliterals, etc.), and "Amen" has a perfectly good internal Hebrew etymology from the triconsonantal root glottal stop-m-n, which is connected with words meaning "believe, support, firmness, faithfulness" etc. When you reveal yourself to be ignorant of the fact that a glottal stop is a consonant like any other consonant (in terms of the morphology of Hebrew and most other Semitic languages) -- as you did in a recent edit -- then unfortunately your state of knowledge is such that you would seem to lack any meaningful qualifications to edit the etymology and pronunciation sections of this article. Please consult further section #An overview above... AnonMoos (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian connection again

This talk-page is ridiculous. The connections between Amen of the bible, and Amen of the Egyptian pantheon are actually overwhelming. Dan Brown even makes mention of it in his latest book: The Lost Symbol, which surprised me. My question is regarding relative sources. We know the Egyptians used the word, however it appears that since all the ancient Egyptian dictionaries are buried, we have no academic sources. And yet the Hebrew's are not required to move beyond the Old Testament. The bible most certainly could never pass as an academic source. So, how does this qualify? And, btw, Gareth Hughes wasted a lot of our time with lesson on hieroglyphics since it's completely irrelevant. The Egyptians actually moved beyond hieroglyphics long before the Jews showed up in their land, so there were many other more appropriate sources for the Jews to borrow from. I mean come on, are you really a scholar or just privy to University sites? JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If the connection is "overwhelming" then you will have no trouble supplying a reliable scholarly source for it, something no other editor has been able to do. Without that, it's just a fringe theory. (You are aware that The Lost Symbol is a work of fiction, aren't you?) DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the following quote from Egyptian hieroglyphs. "Hieroglyphs continued to be used under Persian rule (intermittent in the 6th and 5th centuries BC), and after Alexander the Great's conquest of Egypt, during the ensuing Macedonian and Roman periods.". The Jews had left Egypt and been established in Israel for around a millenium by the time of Alexander the Great. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume he intended to refer to the rise of hieratic (though that doesn't help him prove any of his assertions). AnonMoos (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please forgive my rather abrupt entrance here previously. However, this talk-page wreaks of such biblical apologia as would choke even a Jewish Pope. Mr Clayworth, are you actually suggesting that the Israelites could read Egyptian Hieroglyphs? And with nary an academic source in sight? Shame on you! Let this, all too obvious point, stand gentleman. And please remind Mr Gareth Hughes, that such ambiguous wheels are very poor choices for beating such flustered butterflies upon.

Mr Clayworth, yes, I am well aware that Dan Brown's latest book is a piece of fiction. However, he also mentions Washington D.C., in this recent work of fiction, and quite often too. Does the mere mention of such a place or of another thing, in even a more disjointed work of fiction than Brown's, distract us from the reality of those things that common reason remind us are as facts? Let us move on from this childish and redundant prose slaughtering. Mr Clayworth, excusing my previous "fringe theory" preface, will you please answer my question regarding relative sources?

Gentlemen, citing sources against this website's biblical apologia, contrived of short-sourced, wishful rhetoric, completely void of any semblance of accepted rule, is quite easily accomplished. However, we must first agree upon a definition for this academically acceptable source you ramble on about. I will not simply cite sources for you to toss your silly ill-contrived scarecrows before. Trust me when I say that, I have seen the hollowed convolution, of unreasoned rhetoric, the apologists have laid before the works of some of the greatest academics this world has ever seen. Daniel Martin Varisco has treated this topic of biblical apologia in a quite delightful way; and under the discernment of those most prestigious Ivy Leaguers. That is, of course, if you consider Yale worthy of mention here. JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have difficulty discerning much concrete specific relevant factual meaning in your paragraphs, but in general, it will be a lot more useful to you to learn a little bit about such things as abstract consonantal root structures in the Semitic languages, why a glottal stop is a full-fledged consonant in early Hebrew, etc., so that you can really understand the nitty-gritty details of the linguistic arguments here, rather than indulging in high-flown speculations on history and religion. If you are under the apprehension that linguistic/archaeological scholarship on the Biblical period is dominated by traditionally-minded Christians and Jews who strive to uphold the Biblical narrative in all details, then you are out-of-date by many, many decades. Nowadays, schools such as Biblical minimalism are reasonably-prominent -- but of course, minimalists don't uphold the Amun/Amen theory, since it doesn't really hold up linguistically... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonmoos, your difficulty is born of the simple fact that I have not offered any relevant, factual information as of yet. What I have done is asked a question about relative sources, and requested a clear definition of what is considered an acceptable academic source. The question, and request both, remain unanswered. However, you have taken time to insult my intelligence, of which you are unqualified to access, with an irrelevant suggestion to improve my understanding of semitic linguistic nuances. As to your uneducated accessment of biblical apologia, I will offer you this link: http://www.ahjur.org/lectures/yale.html I can only hope Yale is considered qualifiable, under your strict guidelines for sourcing. After you verify the source carefully, and being mindful not to quote from it, I will expect an appropriate apology for your ignorance on such important academic matters. Perhaps then we can move along to my original question. JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't insult anything -- I merely implicitly observed that the more people really know about the linguistics of the Semitic languages, the less they seem to be inclined to support the Amun/Amen hypothesis. P.S. The Time Cube guy lectured at MIT.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Manson48, your florid language makes what you write hard to understand sometimes. However I will attempt to address your questions as I understand them. I will freely admit that I don't understand what you mean by "relative sources". The Bible is not an academic source, and is not used as such in this article. The only time the Bible is used as a reference in the article is to give examples of Biblical use of the word Amen - one which I hope you will agree is appropriate.

If you wish to know what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia, look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It lays down guidelines, but like everything at Wikipedia, the matter is not defined by strict rule. In general anything written by a well-credentialled academic is acceptable, though even then their viewpoint may be considered 'fringe' if the vast majority of other well-credentialled academics strongly disagree with them. As far as I know there are no well-credentialled academics supporting the derivation of Amen from the Egyptian. I am not sure why you think the Varisco paper is relevant to this subject, though it was certainly interesting. I failed to find anything in there about the derivation of Amen, or indeed about Egypt (save one mention of the British occupation). DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonmoos, I can see that this is going to be an exhausting and futile endeavor considering your inabilty to understand even the basic concepts. You insult someone's intelligence when you make the unqualified assumption they lack understanding or knowledge of a particular thing. You do not know anything of my qualifications. Thus, I could easily be an expert in the very thing you mentioned. Besides the fact that your mention was totally unrelated to my question. Not to even mention the fatal flaw in this scarecrow of recent vintage. As for the other issue, had you actually verified the link, you would understand how ridiculous your statement was regarding the "Time Cube" guy. The gentleman: Daniel Martin Varisco, Associate Professor of Anthropology- Hofstra University, prepared this paper for "The United States and the Middle East: Cultural Encounters", Yale Center for International and Areas Studies. I can asure you that Mr Varisco is very respected in his field.

Mr Clayworth I will address your more appropriate response at a later time. JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel so easily "insulted", but both academic scholarship and Wikipedia are arenas where ideas are exposed to pitiless scrutiny, and you have an overall up-hill climb here, since the Amun/Amen hypothesis is not accepted by the consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area, and the consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area is mainly what Wikipedia goes by in cases such as this one. If you feel it's an "insult" for me to point out that you appear to lack the background in detailed technical linguistic specific facts which would be most useful to you in making your case here, and seem to substitute sweeping broad (and not always too clear) rhetoric in place of such specific factual linguistic arguments, then you should probably prepare to be "insulted" many times again if you intend to continue this conversation in future in the same way as in the past... AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, let us begin anew. AnonMoos, perhaps we should forego the personal jabbing, at least for the time present, and move forward to the genuine issues sub judice. I am well aware of the daunting task before me and of the arguments made both for and against it's merit and impact. To reciprocate your kind suggestion of further studies, I suggest a careful inspection of the article I offered for your consideration on biblical apologetics might serve you well in the future. In an benevalent effort to move forward, let me offer my key points of contention, of which I hope you find, both original to this page, and of worthy consideration. When we consider the importance of our mutual task here, its well established principles and the audience's expectation, it is quite easy to see that the current page fails on each of these points.

Points of contention:

1. The word: Amen, is remarkable in no less than two respects, and the current page is void of those remarks:

A. Amen survives translation of the Judeo/Christian bible in respect to all languages.

B. Amen has a considerable history as a word that has remained 'literally'(augmented pun intended) exclusive to sacred scriptures, religious practices, and/or the mention thereof.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G281&t=KJV

I can see no reason why these remarks should not find harmony in respect to the vast landscape of opinion among your audience, while providing an added value to the current page. Any inferences that could be gathered from them, I suggest, are best left for the reader's further research.

2. A casual inspection of the current page suggests etymological principles are, albeit very subtley, intentionally avoided.

A. The definition of the word is misplaced in the current etymology: Amen, {meaning so be it}, is of Hebrew origin...

I believe that this is a clever attempt to avoid the respected principles of etymology, in order to avoid the rule of broader applications of the word. While the disambiguation page clarifies for the reader the broader usage of the specific word, it does not offer a complete reference thereof. The current etymology completely fails those rules of form so commonly accepted by etymologists. Two forms, one similar to the usage here, are commonly accepted.

However, the current form fails without the inclusion of the broader and well established usage of the word:

Amen–noun Egyptian Mythology. a primeval deity worshiped esp. at Thebes, the personification of air or breath represented as either a ram or a goose (later identified with Amen-Ra). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Amen

Before I proceed further, I would appreciate a response to these two contentions. Thank you. JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.60.22 (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a more reasoned approach. However before we get to the substance of what you say, please make sure you are logged in when you contribute (assuming that you are in fact user:Manson48) and that you sign your posts.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia. That means that it does not have entries about words, but about concepts. This article is about Amen, the Judeo-Christian expression. There is a separate article about Amun the Egyptian God. Insofar as there is a connection between them, it would be reasonable to mention it in this article, but this is not the correct article to be talking about the "broader and well established usage of the word", i.e. the Egyptian God. It is covered elsewhere.

Your first point above is entirely reasonable and you should feel free to augment the article to that effect, to the extent that what you write can be backed up by reputable sources. I would perhaps phrase it that the word "has been adopted into most languages: rather than it "survives translation". Different languages do adopt it in slightly different forms, as our discussion of the French indicates.

With regard to your second point, it looks to me as if the etymology is not avoided at all, but is discussed appropriately in the article. The discussion reflects current etymological belief about the word. If you believe that definition of the word would be better in another part of the article, please make a specific suggestion. If you believe the formatting of the etymology is wrong in some way, please make a suggestion as to how it might be better formatted. if you believe the etymology itself "breaks the rules" in some way, please explain how and why and suggest (with sources) a way this could be fixed. Let me be clear that an edit to suggest an Egyptian origin of the word - or any other variant etymology - must be backed up with reputable sources. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was logged in and the page timed out when I tried to post and asked me to log in again, of which I did. This page act odd at times. Take a look at how this site handles the word: Abraxa, (a similar word of limited usage and ambigous origins) and explain to me why: Amen receives special regard. I doubt we would not be having this discussion were we disputing that page. In fact, the page is so sloppy, it dismisses every argument made by the moderators here "out of hand". I doubt you'll appreciate my suggestions for an appropriate etymology so I might pass on your kind offer. Just tell me why it is that, Egypt, being the undisputed place where the current record verifies the first usage of the word, and in a voluminous and varied amount of texts, that this clear rule of form is neglected? JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Abraxas" or "Abrasax" is word of mysterious etymology which was always used in mystical or occult contexts from the beginning of its attested use (and which seems to have been devised in part so that its Isopsephy would add up to 365). "Amen" has a perfectly legitimate and plausible ordinary etymology within Hebrew based on Hebrew triconsonantal root structures. I fail to see what these two cases meaningfully have in common. AnonMoos (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Monson48 writes: "Egypt, being the undisputed place where the current record verifies the first usage of the word". The references in the article show that is not in fact the case (let alone being 'undisputed'). If by "the word" then you mean the deity name, then you have yet to give a reliable reference indicating the connection. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In etymology we do not need to prove a connection, we simply look to where the word first appeared and speculate as to its origins and derivations. Where is the source for the use of Amen in the Hebrew outside of the bible? You can not use the bible as an authority, and yet you do. The word is found nowhere in ancient times outside of the religious texts associated with the bible. Your attempt at proving the etymology from Hebrew is very weak and purely speculative. This page does not give even a passing reference to the "Erman Consensus" which looked at translation of a word in the Hebrew bible from a whole different perspective. As for Abraxas the word is almost identical to Amen in the context of which it was used. The legitimacy of the Hebrew connection is called into question on many fronts. As for scholars here's a recent study of the word by a couple of scholars, of which, I'm certain you'll dismiss for whatever contrived reason you'll find: http://www.kentucky.com/158/story/246204.html Any other word would be considered in this context, and simply because of the implications that a connection to the Egyptian God, would hold against the bible, the word: Amen, is allowed the most unsubstantiated and speculative of claims. Again, where is the use of the word in ancient Hebrew documents? I await your citation to the proper source. JM P.S. Here's another source that makes the same claim to the word Amen: http://www.futureofgodamen.com/book.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1) The assertion in the first sentence of your remarks is simply not true in linguistics as it has been practiced for at least the last 150 years. Consult article Junggramatiker etc. (though for full understanding, you would probably need to take a course in linguistics).

2) As previously pointed out by Clayworth, your assertion that the "the word first appeared in Egypt" is actually a case of begging the question, since the claim that the Egyptian deity name Amun is the "same word" as the Hebrew interjection amen is precisely what is in need of proof.

3) Abraxas and Amen are found in quite different usage contexts: Occult and mysteriously mystical in the case of Abraxas, liturgical prayers in the case of Amen.

4) We're not relying directly on the Bible (obviously the Bible itself says absolutely nothing about the etymology of Amen), but on the consensus of what mainstream reputable scholars have said about the etymology of Amen.

5) Unfortunately, your link [1] seems to be to one of the controversial offshoots of Afrocentrism theory, as reported in a newspaper. For the purpose of this article, we're a lot more interested in what standard reference works and peer-reviewed journal articles in the areas of Hebrew / Biblical studies / Comparative Semitic / Ancient Near-eastern history have to say... AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations Manson. In the years I have been watching this debate you are the first person to come up with a reference that could reasonably be considered a reliable source for the Egyptian origin of Amen.

I'll allow AnonMoos to comment on the degree of reliability of the source, but it seems that the author is a genuine history professor at a genuine college ([2]) and while his credibility is pretty low on the subject (he's an Assistant Professor of African Studies, not etymology; the book is not peer reviewed;it's published by the publishing arm of an unaccredited college). I would suggest that we upgrade the amount of academic support for the theory from 'none' to 'hardly any'.

As for the rest of your comments, AnonMoos has it exactly right. You claim things as 'obvious' when the vast majority of those who study the matter disagree with you. The Bible is not used as an academic source, and you have given no examples from the article of places where it is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The link http://cah.csudh.edu/africanastudies/sfaraji.htm was added by Manson to his remarks later (I was replying to the earlier version of his comments, before it was added). Still seems more connected with Afrocentrism than Semitic language scholarship... AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, the book has a very low credibility factor (and it was me who added that link, not Manson I went to check on the credentials of the professor from the newspaper article). However we've been using very strong language:"There is no academic support". I think we have to revise that, effectively "There is almost no academic support". DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Trust me there's much more to come. This subject is nothing new, in fact Proverbs is considered by the majority to be Egyptian in origin, as well as are the psalms. The last nail in the bible's coffin will be this Amen controversy. Another problem with the Hebrew translation is the word: testament, which would easily translate: Amen's witness or witness of Amen. I've asked for an ancient Hebrew source for the word: Amen and I get nothing. We have an ancient (1350bc) source for Amen in Egyptian. Since etymology always looks to the first usage of a word, the Hebrew connection fails. The simple problem is the meaning of words changes rather rapidly, and unless you have an ancient source for the word in Hebrew, your contention fails. It's not for me, nor anyone else to prove against the Hebrew connection, because the Egyptian usage predates all other usage and therefore is entitled to the first and foremost claim.

As for your revision, how about a positive preposition: There is some academic support or Academic support is growing?

Anonmoos: You keep using the translation of Amun, when in fact this is not the most common translation for the Egyptian God. Amenhotep, AMENHEMHET, TUTANKHAMEN, and many more are all examples of the god's name translated as Amen. So forget the bull, about needing to provide a link, because none is necessary. The first usage is in Egypt, and considering the Hebrews came into Egypt and left with many other Egyptian words that are found in the bible, we can deduce the flow. This is how the etymology of a word is derived. We do not take a modern usage of a word and apply it to an archaic word to prove some connection. Where is your ancient source for this word in Hebrew? JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the transcription of the Egyptian deity name as "Amen" comes from a 19th-century Western scholarly tradition of rendering Egyptian consonantal orthography into modern European languages basically by transcribing the Egyptian guttural consonants without any direct English consonantal equivalent as "a", transcribing certain weakly semivocalic Egyptian consonants as "i", and then adding in a random sprinkling of "e" vowels in order to make the result pronounceable (if there were too many consonants in a row). So Egyptian consonantal orthographic nfr became "nefer", etc. etc. This was a highly-arbitrary transcription procedure which had nothing to do with how the words would have been actually pronounced with vowels in ancient times. If we ignore such Egyptological conventions, and examine the specific evidence for the vowels in the Egyptian deitiy name, then Amun is apparently favored over Amen (see Greek Αμμων, etc.). -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos: Can I suggest not arguing with Manson over the truth of his claim about the etymology. We should all remember that the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Manson, re your wording suggestions: "some support" is clearly too strong (so far it's one person against the whole of the rest of Academia) and there is no evidence for "growing support".

May I suggest the following wording for discussion: "minimal support"; "almost no support"; "hardly any support". Other suggestions welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Clayworth -- It was the other URL ("futureofgodamen") which Manson added after posting the first version of his remarks, sorry I was confused. If the book authors lack any credentials or demonstrated expertise in the areas of Hebrew / Biblical studies / Comparative Semitic / Ancient Near-eastern history or closely-related areas, then they're not part of scholarship in the relevant field, and there would be no need to change the wording of the article at all. I don't feel like tracking down the bibliographical details of the book and the CV's of the authors right now, and there's no particular rush about changing the wording of the article that I can see... AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If there was no support and now we have some support, this tells us that support is growing. As for Amen v Amun: The most reliable Egyptologists and archaeologists, such as Sir E.A. Wallis Budge, Dr. A.B. Cook, Prof. A Wiedemann, Sir W.M.F. Petrie, and A.W. Shorter, as well as some authoritative dictionaries, all render the name of this Egyptian deity as AMEN.

How about: Two scholars have recently published a book titled: The Origin of the Word Amen: Ancient Knowledge the Bible Has Never Told, in which they contend the word: Amen is of African origin predating its use in Ancient Egypt. http://www.kentucky.com/158/story/246204.html

Keeping in mind the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to inform without bias. Of course truth is a casualty, just as were those academics who had, in the past, taken the bible to task. JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1) E.A. Wallis Budge was fine in his day, but his day was over before 1935, and by now he's the paradigm example of someone whose interpretations are often considered superseded and obsolete by modern Egyptologists, though many people outside of professional scholarly Egyptology remain unaware of the fact. Getting all of your ancient Egypt knowledge from cheap Dover reprints of Budge works is the way to proclaim very loudly and clearly to any scholar of Egyptology that you are ignorant of the developments of the last 75 years or more of developments of scholarship in the area.

2) Dragging up your Afrocentrism book has done nothing to affect my previously stated view that "the more people really know about the linguistics of the Semitic languages, the less they seem to be inclined to support the Amun/Amen hypothesis"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the "academic" source brought by Manson does not refer to any Egyption connection. Rather the (dubious) theory states that "The word (amen) pre-dates ancient Egypt," says history professor, Jahi Issa. "It means the unseen principles of God." I do not believe that there are any written sources that pre-date Ancient Egypt from the entire continent of Africa. Thus this theory is clearly not based on linguistics. I do not think this theory should be given any merit in this article. It is patently ridiculous.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Guedalia, Have you read the book? If you haven't then you can not say what the source says. As for Budge, I cited four other Egyptologists along with him, so dismissing him as you do, does nothing for your argument. Anonmoos, you claim "the whole of acadamia" concedes this point, please list one Egyptologists that concedes this point on Amen. The citations of several online dictionary sources does little if anything for your contention. I found a page yesterday that cited Wikipedia for the same contention. This etymology has simply been copied and pasted over and over without anyone giving an authority for this etymology. Where's the ancient Hebrew documents with the word "Amen" outside the bible?? Quite simply you have none. The case rests on the bible and an etymology that has no authority. It's shabby at best. To say that the whole of acadamia concedes this point is mere speculation. The absence of opposition does not speak for those the remain quiet on the issue. Which just happens to be the majority of Egyptologists. Manson48 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Manson this is getting really tiresome and many of us have better things to do than continue to argue with you. It is incontestable that the mainstream view of Amen is that it is derived from the Hebrew, and the article cites references to back it up, including the dictionaries that you are contemptuous of without reason. Your claim that these sources have "no authority" is without substance, as is your claim that "this etymology has simply been copied and pasted over and over". DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While you guys are scrambling, check out this cite and tell me again that all scholars share your contention:

"In the bible, Psalms 23 is an Egyptian appeal to Osiris. A hymn to Osiris as the Good Shepherd begs him to lead the deceased to the green pastures and still waters of Paradise, the nefer-nefer or most beautiful land, to restore the soul to the body and give protection in the valley of the shadow of death (the Tuat). Before the Lord’s Prayer, an Egyptian hymn to Osiris-Amun (Amen) began, “O Amen, O Amen, who art in heaven.” Amen was also invoked at the end of every prayer. It was later rationalized, in Judaism, into a nod of assent signifying “Truly” or “Verily”."

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0300Christmas.php

Michael D Magee was born in Hunslet, an industrial suburb of Leeds, Yorkshire, in 1941. He attended Cockburn High Schooln South Leeds. He won a studentship to the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham, where he graduated with an honours degree in natural science in 1963. He went on to obtain a PhD degree from the University of Aston in Birmingham in 1967 and a teaching qualification, a PGCE, from Huddersfield before it was a university. As a professional chemist, he was also entitled to use the qualifications ARSC, CChem, and could have on his door, M D Magee, BSc, PhD, ARSC, CChem, PGCE, but never did and no longer pays the subs, so give him some kudos for this website instead. He carried out research at the Universities of Aston and Bradford, and at the Wool Industries Research Association, taught in a Further Education College in Devon for seven years and for ten years was an advisor to the UK government at the National Economic Development Office in London.

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/science/mdmagee.php Manson48 (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not a bad CV. Nearly as good as mine. It clearly makes him as qualified as the other millions of people with PhDs in scientific subjects. And this qualifies him to speak on the etymology of the word Amen how? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of duplicates

AnonMoos and I had to remove some sections that were inadvertantly duplicated yesterday evening. I suggest everyone checks to make sure that any posts they made in the last day are still there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Amun-Amen Academic Support

It is disturbing to me that a Fringe Theory is taking up so much discussion here. The question we are now confronted with is whether or not The Origin of the Word Amen by Issa & Faraji should be considered a reliable source. If it is found to be a reliable source, then the language should be changed to something like "almost no support" or similar language proposed by Clayworth. If it is not considered a reliable source- then the article should remain as is. According to Amazon.com, the book being referred to is published by the Amen-Ra Theological Seminary Press, although this book is not actually listed on their website [3]. The book also has a website at [4]. A close examination reveals that neither Issa nor Faraji are listed as authors of this book. Rather a certain Kwame Osei is credited as the author. Mr. Osei is listed as a B.A. in education. The description of the book and its theories from the website and article quoted above leave me with a strong sense that this book is not reliable. I understand that others will disagree - but my vote is for keeping the article as is, and not crediting a fringe theory in this entry.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything whatsoever on http://www.originofamen.com/ , since I (intentionally) don't have Flash installed in my browser... AnonMoos (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The website doesn't have the look of a scholarly treatise:"We believe that The Origin of Amen is not simply a book, but an invitation to join a new spiritual and cultural renaissance". (And my personal favourite:"About the Author's") DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice try guys, but you're analyses fails and lends even more credit to the Bible apologetics of this cite. Calling this a fringe theory does nothing for your case. Is the Erman consensus a fringe theory too? The majority of scholars agree that the book of proverbs was borrowed from the Egyptians, and you think this single word: Amen could not have crept into the book too. The truth lies in the fact that the word: Amen has survived translation, which only makes sense if it were considered God's name. The Hebrews have 70 different names for their God, many of which are Gods of other religions: i.e. Greek and Roman. Besides the fact that a group of Jews have petitioned to have the name removed. Manson48 (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's fringe theory. So far the only person you have found who supports it, and has anything close to academic credentials is an assistant professor of African studies. Please stop throwing out random allegations without any substantiation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Manson -- it's somewhat unfortunate that your great degree of self-confidence is not matched by a similar great degree of knowledge about the subject being discussed. AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I've stated is random or unsubstantiated. I can provide sources for anything I state as fact. For your enlightenment here's the page of the: United Hebrew Congregation, a group of Jews that disagree with your contention on Amen: http://www.uhcg.org/wupc/no-02.html

As for any other sources, you feel are necessary to provide for purposes of this [talk]page [emphasis added], just ask. Unlike you, I will provide sources for my statements of facts. I've asked countless times for an ancient source for your contention of etymology in the Hebrew form, and, as of yet, nothing! As to Anonmoos, my knowledge is clearly sufficient for this talk page. No one here has presented any absolutes or indisputable knowledge. Where's your link to any Egyptologist that agrees with your contention? Manson48 (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations Manson, two people agree with you. And one of them has a website (even though he can't spell the word probably, not a good indication of academic excellence). We have told you about the sources for the mainstream view so many times that I feel physically tired just writing about them again. That they are not ancient is irrelevant (in fact primary sources are inadmissible on Wikipedia). If you don't believe the sources, or you think that your one assistant professor of African studies knows better than they do, well there is no hope for you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Two sources? Technically it's three, counting the Jewish site and Dr Michael D Magee. But who's counting? Dr Magee is correct, Judaism was left with no choice but to rationalize why they used the Egyptian God's name. The result is shabby at best and I've yet to see any contemporary acamdemic support for this nonsense. As long as you're counting though, here's another one to chomp on:

MOSAIC DOCTRINES CLASS, PARTS 1-34, authored by George Gordon.

The Hebrew of the Old Testament reveals to us that the Scripural Hebrew word (which means: so be it, or verily or surely) is “Amein” and not “Amen.” Likewise, the Greek equivalent in the Greek New Testament is also pronounced: “Amein.” Anyone can check on this in Strong’s Concordance, No. 543 in its Hebrew Lexicon, and No. 281 in its Greek Lexicon, or in Aaron Pick’s Dictionary of Old Testament Words for English Readers. Why then, has this Scriptural word “Amein” been renedered as “Amen” in our versions? Again we can see how the pagans have been made welcome, been conciliated, by adopting the name of a pagan deity into the Church.

Trust me, I've just begun, I haven't even touched on the Germans scholars, who made such outstanding claims the entire bible was plagerized in Egypt. Until then Manson48 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting old. This article is about an English word. That word is Amen. It has a definite meaning and usage. The word is notable, in part, because it has been borrowed from the Bible, and, has a nearly identical meaning within Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is beyond doubt that the word Amen came to English via the Latin and Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible. Amen was directly borrowed, without further translation, from the Hebrew bible to the Greek and so on. With this I am sure all would agree.

Manson wishes to examine the origin of the Hebrew word Amen (or as it is often transliterated academically 'mn .) Manson proposes (as has been posited ad-nauseum here) that the Hebrew word Amen is an Egyptian loan-word to Hebrew. Unfortunately for Manson, there is no reason to believe that the Hebrew Amen's origin is anything other than Hebrew - it has a perfectly normal tri-consonantal root which does not indicate any obvious borrowing. There are several Egyptian loan-words to Biblical Hebrew - however Amen is not one of them. (For a easily accesible site, see http://www.egyptologyforum.org/AEloans.html)

Manson's arguments have been put forward on this talk page for years. In 2008, user Hanina gave several well written explanations regarding the etymology of Amen. Here is one of those posts that I believe may be relevant here:

No one will dispute that there was an Egyptian god named Amun, which might have been pronounced Amen. But he has nothing to do with this article, which is about amen, an interjection in many languages. That the interjection and the deity are spelled the same has not been shown to be anything other than a mere coincidence. The "Amen in Ancient Egypt" section is therefore not appropriate here, but it may be appropriate for the Amun article. There is a disambiguation line at the opening of this article so that anyone looking for the Egyptian god spelled "Amen" can find it.

Thanks for drawing our attention to Strong's Concordance, which verifies the American Heritage Dictionary in stating that Hebrew amen is derived from a "primitive root." —Hebrew amen is therefore not a loan. Looking up this root in Strong's Concordance yields an excellent illustration of how amen is related through this root to a host of other Hebrew words containing the root letters and inflected into different usages. Here is Strong's entry for amen's root, containing a list of its derived forms (in English equivalents):

1) to support, confirm, be faithful

a) (Qal)

2) to support, confirm, be faithful, uphold, nourish

a) foster-father (subst.)

b) foster-mother, nurse

c) pillars, supporters of the door

b) (Niphal)

3) to be established, be faithful, be carried, make firm

a) to be carried by a nurse

b) made firm, sure, lasting

c) confirmed, established, sure

d) verified, confirmed

e) reliable, faithful, trusty

c) (Hiphil)

4) to stand firm, to trust, to be certain, to believe in

a) stand firm

b) trust, believe

Strong's thus shows that there are many Hebrew words derived from the same Hebrew root that amen is, all of them reflecting the root meaning of "establish, [con/af]firm." See it at http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H539&t=KJV

—Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps displaying a mistrust for the Bible as a source of Ancient Hebrew, Manson has asked for a non-biblical Hebrew usage of of Amen. I know of at least one (there may be others) which appears in the famous 7th century (BC) ostracon found at Yavneh-Yam (Mesad Hashavyahu). It reads in part "And all my companions can bear witness for me - they who reaped with me in the heat of the [harvest] - yes, my companions can bear witness for me. Amen! I am innocent of any gu[ilt]." See, Writings from Ancient Israel by Klaas Smelik, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991, pages 93-100. See also, Mesad Hashavyahu.

All of this is brought to show that Amen is a regular Hebrew word whose origin is not under any doubt. If Manson wishes to show that the Hebrew word Amen is a loan word from Egyptian (or any other language) then a scholarly source must be cited. Moreover, because the study of linguistics is highly developed, I do not believe that simple homonym theories should be entertained, rather, such a source should be able to identify the linguistic connections between the loan and borrowed word. I firmly believe that the principle of Ockham's Razor should apply here. The simplest explanation for the two words Amen and Amun is that they are unrelated words that sound similar. The Hebrew Amen was adopted into Greek and other languages virtually with the same meaning as the Hebrew original. The Egyptian Amun has a history of its own (I beleive that the word Ammonia derives from the Egyptian in some way.) However, these two words are not related.

I apologize for such a long post, I will not repeat these arguments again. If anyone cares to review the extensive discussions held on this subject - the archives contain many many posts. I am also not naive, and realize that Manson and others will probably not cease putting forth this dubious theory. The only question remaining is whether the book recently referred to in a newspaper article brought by Manson should be considered reliable enough to warrant inclusion in the wiki-entry. I thank all for their patience.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that post, Guedalia D'Montenegro, which was interesting. However I think this is the time to remind everybody that the standard of Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. In other words, Manson, there is no point in trying to convince anyone that the mainstream view of the derivation of Amen is wrong - even if you successfully convinced everyone now editing this page, it would still be the mainstream view - and that is what the article must report. There is no point in citing evidence that you believe point to an Egyptian origin for Amen - you need to find reputable sources for people who actually believe that.Manson, if you believe that the mainstream view is wrong, you need to first convince a large number of reputable scholars that you are correct: then you can add your viewpoint to Wikipedia. Not the other way round. If you want to have private conversations about the etymology of Amen, you need to do it elsewhere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I cite two solid sources from academics and suddenly Montenegro shows up and the apologetist's hand clamps down hard. I understand the modern etymology from the Hebrew form, and I do not dispute it, even though it's very weak and problematic. You act as though this etymology arrives and explains everything so clearly, when in fact that's not the case. William Harris, Prof. Em. Middlebury College- www.middlebury.edu/~harris, say this in regard to Amen and three biblical verses that defy the common etymology: "The use of an etymology, however real and accurate it may be, runs the risk of overriding context and usage, and must be taken with caution." The modern etymology of Amen is of recent vintage in respect to the common dating of its usage in the bible. The best I can source is around 1250ad. As Pro Harris explains, this etymology fails in application to the use of the word in the bible. This dispute will not likely be settled anytime soon, but at least the record speaks clear in regards to the bias of the site. Another Ermann concensus is due, and just as then the pieces will fall together and thpose problematic verses will suddenly make sense to the academics. The time is ripe, as the paper from Yale clearly shows, becuase the academics are growing very tired of the apologists and their pressures. I, for one, am very patient and shall return here with sources that will either demand an appropriate response or completely discredit this cite. It's been very interesting and educating gentlemen and until that time, I will abide by your request to silence my pen. 15:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)

Oh for pity's sake, Manson. This is why you are so hard to deal with. You say you have cited three "solid sources" for the Egyptian derivation of Amen. I have only seen the book edited by your very doubtful professor of African studies and a non-academic website by the same author [5]. www.askwhy.co.uk is NOT a reliable source. The link you gave for William Harris gets a 404 error. I eventually tracked down William Harris at http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/index.shtml , but I have no idea which if his works you are quoting from. You waste our time with your claims about references you say you have already cited and your inability to do something simple like cut and paste a URL correctly; if you can't do that why should we believe you about anything more complicated, like etymology? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you guys just love the personal shots, don't you? If a link fails, the scholarly thing to do is to request a new link, not trash talk the person who offered the link. Your tactics here are pathetic! Tell me why www.askwhy.co.uk is not reliable. It's maintained by a scholar of generous credentials. It's hilarious to me, how you guys delete from this page at will, with you disclaimers. Hey if you can not delete multiple postings without deleting others, how can we trust you with any thing as complicated as etymology? My point is made, and we'll stick with it and I'll leave you to harrass others with your personal attacks. Quite simply this site is not worth the time. Wiki definitely fails on multiple levels as a quotable source. Which lends to the irony here. Good luck in the future with this page. Manson48 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1. www.askwhy.co.uk is not a reliable source because a) we have only the guy's word for it that his credentials are as they say they are and b) his credentials, even if correct, are completely unrelated to the subject being discussed;it would be like relying on a historian's opinion on a question of theoretical physics c) blogs are almost never considered reliable sources unless the organization or person producing them is known to be reliable.
2. With regard to William Harris, your mistake cost me a lot of time checking him out - work you should have done. And you still haven't answered the question - which of Harris' works on the website are you quoting in your reference?

Feel free to discontinue this discussion. It seems that you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to produce reliable information, not as a forum for publicizing fringe theories. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link for Harris: http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/amen.html Had you asked for the link, I could have saved you all that time you say you wasted. This is how reasonable people solve the small glitches that we all face from time to time with website addresses. You'll note that the address I posted is exactly as is posted at the bottom of the page. Mr Clayworth you asked for an academic source supporting this so called "fringe theory". I asked very early on for clarification and a clear definition of what would be considered a satisfactory source, in order to avoid exactly what has happened here. You responded: "If you wish to know what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia, look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It lays down guidelines, but like everything at Wikipedia, the matter is not defined by strict rule. In general anything written by a well-credentialled academic is acceptable, though even then their viewpoint may be considered 'fringe' if the vast majority of other well-credentialled academics strongly disagree with them", which is a very broad and nebulous definition. Thus, I was left with no choice but to submit sources by trial and error. The first source I posted, you responded:"Congratulations Manson. In the years I have been watching this debate you are the first person to come up with a reference that could reasonably be considered a reliable source for the Egyptian origin of Amen." Of course this source was later attacked from multiple angles and eventually dismissed, and I was then told: "There is no point in citing evidence that you believe point to an Egyptian origin for Amen - you need to find reputable sources for people who actually believe that.Manson, if you believe that the mainstream view is wrong, you need to first convince a large number of reputable scholars that you are correct: then you can add your viewpoint to Wikipedia. Not the other way round. If you want to have private conversations about the etymology of Amen, you need to do it elsewhere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)".

Thus, in a matter of a few postings, from someone that suddenly arrived on the page, I go from "congradulations" to a "get the hell out of here", and I am dumbfounded as to exactly what I've done wrong. I proceed to post yet another academic source, and find myself chastized yet again. Mr Clayworth, if you can not accurately define an acceptable source, please tell me what choice I have but to post those sources that meet the nebulous guidelines that you set forth? Even Guedalia D'Montenegro says this in his opposition to the source: "I understand that others will disagree - but my vote is for keeping the article as is, and not crediting a fringe theory in this entry". Which clearly dismisses any frivolous action on my part, and yet again I am treated as if I'm wasting everyone's time with irrelevant sources.

My Clayworth, I have been treated extremely disrespectfully here, and for no good reason. I've worked diligently at trying to provide as "on-point" sourcing as I possibly can, and each time I am met with personal insults form each of the moderators here. Excuse me if I start to feel as though there's some conspiracy here, because there's absolutely no reason to be treated as such for attempting to provide some acceptable sources, that I have yet to be informed as to what exactly qualifies as such. This is exactly why I asked for that definition before I ever posted a source. Perhaps you guys are tired of this debate in general, and you are convinced it is nothing but a fringe theory. But understand, the debate over Proverbs was treated as such too, and this by the most qualified of scholars from around the world. We can now see how that debate ended, and yet the apologists still waste the world's time trying to convince us that Ermann was wrong. For some reason, we are forced to tolerate the absolute contrived ignorance of the apologist, who will stop at nothing, in an attempt to convolute the scholar's well settled effort.

Wiki's "verifiable" verses "truth" policy reminds me of the first lawsuit I filed. It turned out that the evidence could prove a breach of contract, however the evidence did not reflect the truth. As attorneys, we are more than happy to accept the truth as a casualty for an award of damages. I presented the evidence, proved a breach of contract that never occurred, and took the money. Everyone was happy, except the defendant, who lost absolute faith in our judicial system. So save your lectures for the idealists, you're preaching to the choir's star vocalist here. The arrogance of the moderators here is only matched by their ignorance, and for this I am thankful. In a courtroom, each one of these laughable clowns would have been impeached long ago. The contradictions of testimony are too numerous to mention. It's been far too easy proving the obvious here. These ego-ladened psuedo-intellectuals are two bars below silly. I was hoping for more of a challenge. Gentlemen and clowns, I shall leave you now for a short time, while I reveiw this sillyness, and prepare my brief. I shall return with the evidence and whatever travesty it presents as worthy of mention here. Until then, take care. Manson48 (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your vow to leave didn't last long. I'm sorry you don't understand Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, but most of us find it clear enough. It is, as I said, not a strict rule, since Wikipedia is consensus based rather than rule based. However I would have thought some things were obvious, and I didn't bother to say them assuming you would understand. Sources are more likely to be accepted if a) the person writing them is well credentialled in the appropriate field b) the person writing them is accepted as knowledgeable by others in the field c) there are multiple sources that agree. I assume you submitted the best sources you could find. If you have better ones, now is the time to submit them.

Thank you to the link to Harris. However on reading the article it does not support your viewpoint. The word Egypt is not mentioned. In fact Harris states "A sensible etymology takes Amen back to the tri-consonantal Hebrew root 'mn' with the general meaning of 'be strong, be firm, be faithful. . .' with the noun form 'emuna' as 'faith'." That is in explicit contradiction to the view of an Egyptian origin. If you have legal experience I would imagine you are familiar with the idea that a) you must have evidence to prove your point and b) the evidence must be admissible within the rules. On Wikipedia the evidence must be reliable secondary sources. If it turns out that your etymology for Amen is correct, and you can produce sources to prove it, then we will be the first to change the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I pointed to Harris because of what he had to say about etymology, and how the current etymology of: Amen, fails. I am currently preparing a brief which, I believe, will satisfy the demands of this website. Until then Manson48 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Harris does not say that the etymology of Amen 'fails' in the sense that it is incorrect; he says that the etymology of Amen does not fully describe its meaning. This is in the same way that the word 'chairman' has a meaning beyond that suggested by its etymology (i.e. a man who sits on a chair). The article has no bearing on the etymology of Amen.

Let me remind you that the only things that are admissible to Wikipedia are reliable secondary sources - i.e. documents showing a reliable authority who believes that the etymology of Amen is as you say. Arguments constructed by you, no matter how carefully, are not admissible they are original research. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You missed the point, but no matter.

Here's somthing to chomp on:

"Just as the word secret has its origin in the translation of an ancient word, so too do other related words have their similar bases. In ancient Egypt, the word amen was used to signify something hidden or concealed. The word occult meant very much the same: ’hidden from view’ - and yet today we use amen to conclude prayers and hymns, while something occult is deemed sinister. In real terms, however, they both relate to the word secret, and all three words were, at one time or another, connected with the mystic science of endocrinal secretions." http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_21.htm

Laurence Gardner is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and an Associate of the Institute of Nanotechnology. Distinguished as the Chevalier de St. Germain, he is a constitutional historian, a Knight Templar, and is Presidential Attaché to the European Council of Princes. Based in England, he is author of The Times and Sunday Times bestseller, Bloodline of the Holy Grail. This was serialized nationally in the Daily Mail and gained Laurence a UK Author of the Year award in 1997. Manson48 (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't want to sound too academically snooty, but "author of Bloodline of the Holy Grail" translates immediately to "has zero scholarly credibility"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, who would have guessed that response? George Gordon stands because he is cited in a secondary source, and especially because that source is Jewish. I posted the link previously and it was simply ignored. Actually we do not need to move beyond the Erman consensus, since the NAB translators corrected proverbs to read Amen-em-Ope: The solution chosen by the NAB translators apparently takes the Hebrew consonants for "this day, even you" [ht)-P) Mwyh = hywm'p'th -> (h)ym'p't] to be a garbled version of the consonants for imn-ipt, thereby yielding the rendering: "That your trust may be in the Lord, I make known to you the words of Amen-em-Ope." Ibid., p. 3:411. Manson48 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Amenemope, Proverbs and Erman

While the debate about whether and to what extent the Instruction of Amenemope influenced the Book of Proverbs is fascinating, it does not help us at all with the etymology of the word Amen. The words from Proverbs 22:19 which may refer to Amen by name actually says in the Hebrew "hayom af atah" or as Manson correctly transliterated in the academic convention hywm 'p 'th. Please note that this is not related to the word Amen. Rather, these words are difficult to understand in the Hebrew, and may actually be reffering to Amenemope. Also note the Hebrew word Amen does not appear in Proverbs, and, to the best that I can ascertain, Amen as an Egyptian word does not appear in the Instruction of Amenemope. Rather Amen appears only as part of a proper name - the author of the work - Amenemope, the son of Kanakht. Nothing in the Instruction of Amenope indicates that the Hebrew word Amen is of Egyptian origin.

The introduction of the "Erman consensus" here is irrelevant. It is interesting to speculate about the relationship of the Book of Proverbs to this Egyptian wisdom work. It is also interesting to speculate about the implications of such a relationship. However, the origin of the Book of Proverbs, infulences on the development of ancient near eastern Wisdom literature, or even speculating as to Egyptian influence on Israelite religion may be interesting, but none of this is relevant to the Hebrew word Amen. Manson's use of the "Erman consensus" is nothing but a red herring.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

---

There is no debate that merits any attention, or that moves Erman back to mere speculation. Quite simply the vast majority of academics adhere to the Erman consensus. And yes, as you know all too well, the word: 'Amen' is in the title of the instructions of: 'Instructions of Amen em ope.' No egyptologist would ever suggest that the mention of: Amen, in an Egyption name would ever be defined as anything other than the Egyption God: 'Amen'. Your arguments are growing weaker, and leaning toward pathetic. Apologetics can only stretch so far before they leave the scholar on the fringe of academic support. Erman gaurantees us that the Hebrews borrowed from the Egyptians, and provides the proper ancient etymology of the word: Amen. Etymology always looks to the first use of a word, and especially so when the cultures are known to have mingled and borrowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The reliance on the Hebrew: amaan, for the modern etymology of: amen is, as Gerald Massey's: 'A BOOK OF THE BEGINNINGS SECTION 4 EGYPTIAN ORIGINS IN WORDS' demonstrates, flawed. The word used in invocation in Hebrew is: 'akak-ak', and in Akadian: is 'kak-ama.'

'The stars were the earliest watchers on this account. The sun that watched through the darkness, was named kak or hak. The modified akh is the name of the illustrious watchers, the stars, and the Akkadian moon-god. The earliest wake is the kak, as in the Assyrian kak-karrit, an anniversary. The first watching is keking, or keeking. Ka-akh (Eg.) denotes a calling for the light, or for the dead, manes, spirits. And in a magic papyrus at Berlin occurs this formula of ka-ing or kha-akh-ing, 'khaakh! khakhakh! kharkharakakha!' An invocation that probably preserves the language of calling used by [p.147] the oldest watchers in the world, who besought the akh by night and rejoiced at certain recurring periods, and held their kaka, and uttered what the costermongers still designate a 'kihike,' i.e., a kind of hurrah, a cry in praise of, to call attention to[21]. The Hebrew akak-ak (חא חחא) means to cry out, ak, or ah, as a mode of invocation. Ka-ka (Akkadian) is to confirm the word by repetition of ka, to speak. The Akkadian amen (amanu), is 'kak-ama.'

http://www.masseiana.org/bbbk4.htm Manson48 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Amen" for the Egyptian deity name is merely an old style arbitrary conventional Egyptological transcription, and provides no indication whatsoever that the vowel in the second syllable was actually "e", as previously discussed. There's a reason why the Wikipedia article is at Amun, not "Amen" Second, "k" is completely and utterly inadequate as a transcription of the Hebrew ħet or ח consonant, as you wuld already know if you had a little linguistic knowledge of Hebrew. Third, "חחא" is completely implausible as a Hebrew triliteral verb root for various reasons, and certainly no forms derived from such a root are listed in standard reference works as occurring in the text of the Hebrew Bible. It's somewhat unfortunate that you have so little knowledge in the area that you are unable to determine for yourself what sound scholarship is and is not. AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which just goes to show that the current invocation definition fails, especially considering the redundancy of the use, as it were, in Revelations. There's absolutely no reason to suggest the Hebrews would have used the word: Amen as an invocation considering they already have a word for that. Unless you are actually impying that Massey was wrong, of which would be very naive and extremely foolish. Massey, not only was more than happy to correct any mistakes that were brought to his attention, and very apologetic to his audience, Massey also could read hieroglyphics, but rather than leave his contentions rest on his own translations, took extraordinary care to cite only the most 'indisputable' sources. http://www.masseiana.org/ml1.htm Manson48 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response to Gordan especially in light of the Jewish site as a secondary source. I wonder if anyone here understands the dis-service they do to Christians with this unwillingness to state the obvious. I have found, in my search, many Christian sites that promote the Egyptian link and vow to abolish the name, as such is considered blasphemy by their lord and God. Manson48 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? I hardly think a response is neccesary, however I will indulge you. First, the passage you quote from Massey relates not at all to the word Amen, (and seems to be a lot of nonsense.) Gerald Massey was a Nineteenth Century theosophist who made wild claims regarding the non-historicity of Jesus. Massey has been widely criticized, both in his own time and today. See, Religion And Science In Late Nineteenth-Century British Egyptology, David Gange, The Historical Journal (Cambridge), 49, 4 (2006), pp. 1083–1103; Neither Scholarly Nor A Solution: A Response To Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ, Gordon Heath, McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 6 (2003–2005) 126-153. Moreover,

As regards "Gordan" and the Jewish webpage you have cited: Are you referring to this? MOSAIC DOCTRINES CLASS, PARTS 1-34, authored by George Gordon This is hardly a citation to a scholarly article - or even any article at all. As far as I can tell - you are referring to a class given by this man: [[6]], hardly an academic source, wouldn't you say? I found a possible transcription of the theory you are mentioning here: [[7]]. This "thesis" was being offered as part of an "ordination" process for the Union of Nazarene Yisraelite Congregations. This is certainly not a recognized academic institution. The thesis quotes Gordon's claims, here are some excerpts:

The Hebrew of the Old Testament reveals to us that the Scripural Hebrew word (which means: so be it, or verily or surely) is “Amein” and not “Amen.” ... The Egyptians, including the Alexandrians, had been worshipping, or been acquainted with, the head of the Egyptian pantheon, Amen-Ra, the great Sun-deity, for more than 1,000 years, B.C.E. Before this deity became known as Amen-Ra, he was only known as Amen among the Thebans. This substitution of “Amen” for “Amein” was greatly facilitated by the fact that this Egyptian deity’s name was spelt in Egyptian hieroglyphic language with only three letters: AMN, just as we find a similar poverty of vowel-pointing by the Massoretes, also only spelt its AMEIN as AMN. However, with the vowel-pointing by the Massoretes the Scriptural word has been preserved for us as: AMEIN. On the other hand, the Egyptian deity AMN is rendered by various sources as AMEN, or AMUN, or as AMON. However, the most reliable Egyptologists and archaeologists, such as Sir E.A. Wallis Budge, Dr. A.B. Cook, Prof. A Wiedemann, Sir W.M.F. Petrie, and A.W. Shorter, as well as some authoritative dictionaries, all render the name of this Egyptian deity as AMEN...Our Saviour Yahushua calls Himself “the Amein” in Rev. 3:14. Substituting a title or name of our Saviour with the name of the great hidden Sky0deity or the great Sun-deity of the Egyptians, Amen, is inconceivable ! The difference is subtle, but it is there. By ending our prayers with “Amen” instead of “Amein,” one could very well ask: Have we been misled to invoke the name of the Egyptian Sun-deity at the end of our prayer?”

This argument has been made and discussed several times over, responses have been given already. Manson, I suggest you re-read what Hanina, Gareth Hughes, and, AnonMoos have written here already (you will have to read through the archived talk pages as well.) I do not have any interest in debating this issue. Manson's views are clearly fringe. They are mentioned in the article appropriately. I would perhaps, add Afrocentrism to Theosophy as being the proponents of this theory. I would also urge that the proper context remain, namely that such theories are not supported by mainstream academics. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to say the least. I've read enough here to realize this point is at current moot, simply because of the position of this site. It has absolutely nothing to do with academics, as I have offered many scholars of which all have been dismissed out of hand. I am tempted to assemble a team of 150 college students from our University here and begin editing this site congruent with the demands made here for academic sources. It would be interesting to see what remains, considering that any scholar that writes a piece of fiction shall dismissed immediately. As to Massey's dispute on the antiquity of the Jews, he sleeps with the best of company of Ancient Greek philosophers. So much so that Flavius Josephus was compelled to answer with his tiresome and speculative: 'Against Apion'. Keeping in mind that we have absolutely no evidence for the claimed antiquity of the Jews.Manson48 (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is considered bad form to recruit Meatpuppets.

What university are you referring to?

Now we are discussing the historicity of the Jews and Josephus' Against Apion? Why? Isn't this an article about the word Amen? Perhaps you are frustrated by not being able to find enough support for this theory to remove it from being a "fringe"? But that is no reason to resort to unrelated (inflammatory) issues. Lets keep the discussion about the word Amen.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing it because you brought it up in an effort to dismiss him. Are you just plain whacko? Massey offers us the proper invocation in Hebrew and Arkadian, which is no where near Amen in either. The current eytomolgy is contrived just as Gordon states, it makes absolutely no sense in the contex of which it is used. Besides, how can you consider amaan as the root for mn? The truth is you can not rely on this eytomolgy. It could just as easily be turned around, whereas amaan is taken from the root Amen. Not to mention the late dating of the etymology and usage of the word. All this because you can not site an ancient source for the Hebrew word. I'm not frustrated for lack of sources, I am certain that I will find reliable sources for the contention. After all, during the Erman consensus scholars from the four corners of the planet were disputing the plagerism of the Hebrews.Manson48 (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, who is better-placed to judge whether the etymology of "Amen" from the triliteral consonantal root aleph-mem-nun within Hebrew/Semitic is plausible or not -- those who actually know something about ancient Hebrew and Semitic linguistics, or those who know nothing or very little except what they get rehashed at third hand as filtered through works which have a much stronger focus on occultism, esoteric religion, and/or "alternative" historical theories than on rigorous linguistics??? P.S. Using the garbled pseudo-form "Yahushua"[sic] (which never existed in Hebrew) is another signal which immediately indicates to academic types that one has zero scholarly credibility... AnonMoos (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Ancient peoples had almost no concept of "plagiarism" whatsoever, so your use of the word (which you are incapable of spelling correctly) reveals a lot more about your own personal attitudes than it does anything meaningful about ancient texts. AnonMoos (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You spelled 'would' as 'wuld' above, which according to your own rationality disqualifies you. But this page is not a spelling contest, it is about the eytomolgy of the word: Amen. Plagiarism defines the actions of the Hebrews, rather they were ignorant of the practice or not. Ignorance of the term does not excuse anyone from the practice, otherwise we could potentially have a huge problem today. As I've said before, the moderators here are pathetic clowns who offer no respect to anyone who takes a well established position against theirs. According to your further rationality any Judeo/Christian should be immediately dismissed as prejudice. Bible apologetics are at the front of the majority of archeologists. They never speak with respect to any mystic cults influence on findings. Quite simply it just does not happen. Bible apologetics is a huge problem for archeologists today, as in the past. http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0165Archaeology.php Manson48 (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

PS You are unqualified to access rather the ancients had any notion of plagiarism, in fact, no one is qualified to make that assumption. Egyptologists agree that we have very little to help us understand the ancient peoples. I like the fact that the moderators here make broad assumptions of wholecloth, and never offer a source for any of them. The bottom line is the current etymology is contemporary, and based entirely on assumption. Tell me why we have no etymology for Amun. This is absolutely silly beyond words because you have no ancient source for the etymology. You call this a 'fringe' theory, when in fact it is very wide spread, even among the believers and Jews. We all know the truth and if the believers wish to worship a pagan God, then Amen (so be it) to them. (pun fully intended) It's just absolutely silly and I laugh every time they call his name in ignorance. Manson48 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, if you were in a cosmopolitan capital like Athens or Rome, with a strong belles lettres or art-literature tradition, and where authors sometimes read their latest works aloud (or had them read aloud) at upper-class banquets, then if you were found out to have passed someone else's poetic verses off as your own work, there would certainly have been a negative reaction among your little clique of fellow-aesthetes. However, in almost all other contexts, almost all peoples of the civilizations of ancient times would have found the concept of plagiarism to be almost completely meaningless. Therefore your use of the word "plagerism"[sic] is almost completely anachronistic and irrelevant, and would seem to reveal a whole lot more about your personal religious attitudes and prejudices than anything which happened in ancient times. AnonMoos (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a term 'Dude' for what happened, and says nothing about my attitude. The Jews copied it and claimed as their own, what do we call that today? Let's get back to the topic here, I am bored, and angry with your personal shots. I do not disguise my attitude on religion, and yes I am prejudice, and for good reason. History is very important, and this apologetics needs to stop. Many archeologists work their whole life to bring forth the facts, only to have some non-expert attempt to convolute the evidence to prove the bible accurate. I've talked with the gentleman who wrote the Yale paper and others, and it's very frustrating for these folks. In your favor, the author of the Yale paper agreed with the current etymology, although I did not present any evidence to the contrary for his consideration. I can at least admit that I may be wrong, although I seriously doubt that it's a mere coincidence, especially considering the numerous names of the other Gods, the Hebrews use for their own in the bible. The fact that it doesn't make any sense in the majority of context does not help at all. Adonai, for instance, is the name of a God, it does not mean lord, as suggested by those that wish to dismiss its use. Manson48 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the word Amen. It does not purport to support to the truth of the bible. Nor does this entry attempt to support Judaism or Christianity (or Islam) simply because of the word Amen. The etymology of the word Amen is the question here. That etymology is clear. Manson - you wish to challenge the accepted view, and, that's fine. However, in order to move past the realm of "fringe theory" you must provide reliable sources. Up to this point you have not.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Then please remind your moderators of the topic at hand also, and please remind them that taking personal shots does not add to their credibility. If you re-read this post, you will see that the times I have moved from the topic was either in defense of a source, or myself. It seems to me that your moderators use this method to distract and divert from the topic. And of course, I am the one who is admonished. As to reliable sources, I doubt that this site will accept any sources on this topic. Quite simply, the definition is entirely too nebulous, and I believe that is for the purpose of dismissing anyone that disagrees with the current consensus, such as the first source I offered. There's absolutely no reason to disqualify that source other than pure prejudice. While it may not merit source of the year, it does offer another perspective to topic from well educated scholars. The choice of: 'Amun' is another perfect example of blatant prejudice, because the majority of Egyptologists settle on: 'Amen'. As a matter of fact, I have never seen it spelled Amun in an Egyptian name such as: Amenhotep and so many others. The all too obvious problem here is that you've locked youselves into a position, and your egos will not allow you to move beyond that position. Manson48 (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, this matter has been previously discussed repeatedly above -- the majority of Egyptologists in the E.A. Wallis Budge era may have used the transcription "Amen" for the Egyptian deity name, but this was a purely conventionalized form arrived at by semi-arbitrarily adding the letter "e" where it seemed necessary to make Egyptian orthographic consonantal sequences look pronounceable when expressed using Latin alphabet. "Amen" was NOT a phonological reconstruction, and in fact was NEVER intended to be a serious phonological reconstruction, as far as I'm aware. AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather it's been discussed previously or not, is irrelevant to me. The current spelling is, as you admit, contrary to the majority. Further, your statement: 'as far as I am aware' is pure speculation, and offers no comfort. The truth is that no one knows anything positively, and any eytomology is mere speculation. Also the statement that 'sometimes' it is spelled: Amen, is entirely misleading. Beyond that, it is, as I said previously, that the first link I offered should be included, if only for those folks that are curious about this alleged 'fringe theory'. Your refusal to include the link, even for that purpose, speaks loudly as to your motivation. As a matter of fact, you can not even mention this fringe theory, per the rules, without offering a source. You need to be congruent, otherwise you discredit the entire site.Manson48 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First, the transliteration of the Egyptian god Amun as Amen or Amon, or otherwise, is a discussion to be held on the Amun page and not here. Second, what "first link" did you offer? I am not sure what you are referring to. Also, no one has refused to include a link, there are already several links to websites purporting the fringe Egyptian etymology theory. If you feel there is something gained by adding another footnote, feel free to add a note to the sentance:

Popular among some theosophists and adherents of esoteric Christianity is the conjecture that amen is a derivative of the name of the Egyptian god Amun (which is sometimes also spelled Amen).

Finally, you are using the word rather incorrectly. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2010 )

Thank you, I'd like to add a link to the book:

'The Origin of the Word Amen: Ancient Knowledge the Bible Has Never Told' http://www.kentucky.com/158/story/246204.html Manson48 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A Reliable Source?

I found this site in my search for sources regarding: Amen. I would ask for some feedback as to rather it merits any consideration as a source. Thanks Manson48 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/amen.html

This is another non-academic web site. I would not consider it a reliable source. At least, however, this website acknowledges that: "Articles are published on this site in good faith and we take no responsible for their accuracy."

The article you looked at re-hashes many of the arguments proposed on this talk page over the past 2-3 years. You are already aware how those arguments have been responded to by many here (i.e. not taken seriously.) So, I assume that you aren't trying to re-hash the arguments - but rather you are searching for reliable sources to support the Egyptian etymology idea. I don't think you will find any. But good luck. To avoid being dismissed out of hand, you should look for articles that are peer reviewed. JSTOR is a good place to start, although they are expensive unless you are searching through a library or university. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Yes I am familiar with JSTOR, and I'm going to check with my daughter's college to see if I can get access. Manson48 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source for a book on the subject. The author has an MBA in finance which is not necessarily relevant, and I understand if you may not consider it as reliable. However I would like to post the link along with the link to the book: 'The Origin of the Word Amen: Ancient Knowledge the Bible Has Never Told' for those people that are interested in exploring the theory further. Thanks Manson48 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.futureofgodamen.com/index.htm

Also, I feel that consideration should be given to the reviewers of the book: 'Origins of the word Amen:' in considering the reliabilty of the book. Manson48 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.originofamen.com/Manson48 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You already mentioned "futureofgodamen" above, and I already mention that the person who runs the website seems to have chosen to display it completely blank to those who don't have Shockwave Flash installed.... AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the first book I posted. As for shockwave, since when, and of course why, does that affect reliabilty? I also believe that the reviews of: 'The origins of the word Amen:', considering the qualifications of the reviewers, more than bring this source up to Wiki standards. Manson48 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This book was in the footnote I added the other day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I was unaware. Manson48 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

El Melekh Ne'eman

Please explain to me how The Talmud teaches homiletically that the word Amen is an acronym for אל מלך נאמן (’El melekh ne’eman, "God, trustworthy King"),with an 'A' where it would have to be an 'E'.Manson48 (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The first letters of the words El Melekh Ne'eman are aleph, mem, and nun. Amen is spelled "aleph, mem, nun." Making Amen an acronym for El Melekh Ne'eman. The teaching is homiletic (i.e. it is not literal, rather it is used in a teaching.) The source comes from Tractate Sanhedrin (111a) where during a discussion regarding when a child earns a place in the world to come one opinon given is that of R' Meir who says:

"From when he [the child] said Amen, as it is written, [in Is. 26:2] Open the gates, that may enter the righteous nation, who keep the faith , read not who keep the faith [Heb. = shomer emunim] but who say Amen. [sh'omer amen]. What does Amen mean? — Said R. Hanina: God, faithful King. [El Melekh Ne'eman]." [Thus, the opinion of Rabbi Meir is that when a child answers a blessing by saying "amen" he proclaims his faith and becomes meritorious of the "world to come.]

In this homiletical teaching, Rabbi Hanina connects the word Amen to the phrase El Melekh Ne'eman. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I found this, and it seems to me to fit better: Amen is an acronym for three Hebrew words 1. Ay (one of the names of God) 2. Melech (king) and 3. Ne'eman (faithful). Manson48 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Manson48 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Amenmoses / Moses

On a seperate note, does anyone here know if Amen was dropped from Amenmoses in the bible? Manson48 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Many have proposed that the name "Moses" originated as the second half of an Egyptian theophoric name with the deity name component suppressed, but the specific deity name involved would be a matter of pure hypothetical speculation not based on any available solid evidence. In any case, there's no evidence that I'm aware of that the full theophoric name was ever present in the text of the Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that many internet sites take broad liberties in their claims. With that said, I can see why Wiki demands a high standard of sources. Manson48 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the name Moses relates to this entry. This discussion would be better served by taking it to Moses or Amun talk pages. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk)

While Moses may not directly relate here, Amenmoses should; because it would show Amen in a different context, and that context being in Egyptian form. Manson48 (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling?

It would seem that we have an incorrect spelling for the ancient Hebrew word: Amen. Acording to the 'Hebrew Research Center' the proper spellings would be: a-man 'Be firm', a-meyn 'So be it', and a-mats 'Be strong'. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/35_dictionary_01.html Manson48 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What you are seeing is an attempt at transliteration of a particular type of pronunciation (it also seems a bit garbled as it combines sephardic and ashkenazic pronuciations.) One of the problems is that the pronunciation of the Hebrew vowel "tzere" is not fixed thus the transliterations are not always consistent. The other problem is that how to pronounce the english form "ey" is not clear or uniform. This article attempts to give a uniform pronunciation using the International Phonetic Alphabet [[8]] although I must admit I don't really understand this system much. Perhaps others can elucidate on the IPA of Amen.

The spelling here is correct. The English word is Amen. In the Hebrew, it is spelled Aleph, Mem, Nun. The pronunciation is discussed in the article. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am confused, because every source claims the word has survived all translations. Amen is simply not in the Hebrew vocabulary outside of the bible. I've read this from another source also, allegedly written by a Rabbi. If the word is correct, then doesn't the claim have to be wrong? Manson48 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a very confused posting. First - that Amen has survived translation means that instead of translating the word amen from the Hebrew into Greek, Latin or other languages - it is usually just transliterated without translation (i.e. when translating the Bible into Greek, Latin or English - it is common to simply leave the word "Amen" rather than translating it into "verily" or "So be it" etc.). Second - Amen is a common Hebrew word that appears in Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, Medieval Hebrew and Modern Hebrew. Thus it has always been a part of the Hebrew vocabulary. If you mean to question whether the word was used outside the bible in ancient times, I have already shown you that the word Amen appears in an ostracon from Yavneh Yam (Mesad Hoshavyahu) which was written in the 7th Century B.C. So, the word was clearly in use outside of the bible - even in ancient times. Hope this explains whatever it was you were getting at. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your time here, and I won't press this issue any further other than to state why I believe this explanation makes very little sense. 'Yahweh' is an example of what you speak about, being: 'YHWH'. This word survives in its original form, while Amen does not. Outside of the one source you offered for: Amen, I can not find the word in any online Hebrew dictionary. I would also disagree with your claim for 'ancient times' considering the relative dating of the Egyption term is 1200-1300BC. We're talking about 2000 years here. And after all, the Jews claim the Old Testament is dated at least around that time. We should be seeing it much earlier, unless, of course, the etymology is contrived for the obvious reasons. It would be about this time that the first excavating by Dhul-Nun al-Misri, began in Egypt. As far as my point, if the word is actually spelled as I stated, then the current etymology could not survive. Thanks for your time Manson48 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok - I understand that this is what you believe. However, you should be aware that you have asserted several factual errors in the above comment. If you would like to know more - you can contact me on my talk page. If you have questions or comments directly related to this entry (Amen - interjection) then feel free to post them here. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Manson48 (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Flaws in page

In my opinion, the current page displays two critical flaws:

1) The current page states:"There is no academic support for either of these views." This, as we know, is entirely false. While Wiki may refuse to qualify the several sites that I have offered, this does not dismiss the fact that there are academics who support theses views. I do not fully undestand Wiki's desire to summarily dismiss these views. Other than the obvious apologetic motive, I can not see any viable reason for this attitude. It's a word with a lengthy history that is not being represented accurately. I know it has been said quite often that these views are simply "fringe theories", and , in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Scholars, Christians and even Jews, among so many others, not only consider these views, but find it imperitive to adhere to these views. Alien seeding of the original race, Space ships in the bible, and these sorts of theories are on the fringe, the origins of Amen are simply not. There is a vast amount of evidence to support these views, both in and outside of the bible. While Wiki may take issue with the several sources that have been presented, this policy does in no way move these theories to the fringe.

2) The current etymology is lacking the complete history of the word Amen. Each and every dictionary and encyclopedia I've seen on the internet includes the Egyptian use of the word Amen. This site omits that citation, and again I can see no viable reason outside of apologetics. There is no excuse for this omission. The inclusion of the word Amun in the disambiguaton page offers no remedy, and is only misleading.

This behavior does no justice to this site's reputation. A simple search provides a user with the truth, and at that time Wiki's reputation is in jeopardy. When the reader finds that, contrary to this sites claim and omission, that not only is there academic support, but that the etymology is clearly incomplete, they are likely to believe that Wiki is a prejudice and worthless site. A simple addition to the etymology and a rewording of the statement can remedy these flaws. I can see no reason why Wiki would not be happy to save any possible neddless damage to a reputation that already is under scrutiny. Thank you for your consideration. Manson48 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately, 1) The "academics" whom you've cited in favor of your thesis are out of their academic field, and are conspicuously lacking in recognized credentials within areas such as Semitic linguistics / ancient Hebrew / ancient Near East Studies, etc. 2) If the derivation from the triliteral consonantal root glottal stop-m-n is judged by the mainstream consensus of respected authorities within the field to be plausible, and a derivation from an ancient Egyptian deity name to be implausible, then nothing is meaningfully "missing". 3) Which dictionaries are those which include an Amun derivation? My Biblical Hebrew lexicon doesn't include it, and neither does the OED... AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Manson is in fact deliberately trying to mislead. Many dictionaries do indeed mention the existence of the word Amen with the meaning of the Egyptian deity. Manson knows full well that those dictionaries merely note it as a word with the same spelling, and never indicate a derivation of one from the other. But he hopes to bluff either us, or other readers of this page, into assuming that there is a connection, because he says so over and over again. Neither one is going to work.

Our reputation would be much worse if we were to include a fringe theory, with a tiny number of adherents, as if it were valid. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you have included a fringe theory. After all, exactly what is the bible? As for your accusation that I'm trying to mislead, you are mistaken. Each of those sites, as you admit, do mention the word. They also do not mention that any connection either does nor does not exist, nor that such consideration would be utterly ridiculous. You guys are working way too hard to convince yourselves. Look back at this page and you'll see how obvious this is. The evidence presented here is overwhelming by any stadard. Rather Wiki accepts it is really irrelevant. If you are happy with the misleading statement in regards to academics, I digress. It's not my concern, I could really care less. This page stands as a testament to your bias. It satisfies my purpose here. Good luck with this page in the future. Manson48 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Manson, some of your little rhetorical tricks, which you persist in repeating numerous times over and over again, are really getting kind of old and stale and tired. I've avoided speculations about personal motivations up until now, but the fact that after a whole month you've seemingly made no effort whatsoever to learn what an abstract triconsonantal root is (and its linguistic functioning), would appear to be strong evidence that you have no real interest in this subject in itself, but only insofar as you can use it to push some kind of religious/historical agenda. Unfortunately for you, promulgating your personal religious/historical agenda is not one of the functions of Wikipedia. Frankly, you've about exhausted the subject as far as you can with your currently-chosen approach, and any further verbiage along the same lines as previously would have little effect other than to try other people's patience. AnonMoos (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would only add to what Clayworth and AnonMoos have already written, that there is in fact an article about Amun on wikipedia. The fact that this Egyptian god is spelled Amun and not Amen is a topic that can be discussed on the Amun talk page. We are still waiting to see a reliable source that advocates the Egyptian or Hindu etymologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk • contribs) 23:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonmoos, I haven't responded to your little 'triconsonantal' theory because it's irrelevant and redundant. Talk about repetitive postings. If you actually researched this yourself, rather than incessantly copy and pasting this ridiculous theory over and over, you would know something about ancient Egyptian and Glottal stops. Get a clue. Manson48 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, it is not a "theory", it is a basic fact about the structuring of the Semitic languages (and also of the ancient Egyptian language, by the way) which has been clearly recognized by grammarians and linguists for almost a thousand years -- and a grasp of it is absolutely essential in order to be able to evaluate the competing merits of the proposed "internal" and "external" etymologies of Hebrew Amen in any useful way. In my very first reply to you ("12:35, 24 January 2010" above) I advised you to learn about consonantal roots, and the fact that you chose not to listen to that advice has quite a bit to do with why we're rapidly growing tired of you now... AnonMoos (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My question to you Anonmoos is: How does this 'basic fact' prove anything? I found in my research on this topic, (contrary to what you have stated so many times, I did look into this), that the same 'facts' apply to both Hebrew and Egyptian. Manson48 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Both Semitic and ancient Egyptian had consonantal roots, but Amen only has a semantically-plausible derivation directly from a Semitic root. AnonMoos (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, you're suggesting that we can find no Egyptian root from which the word Amen derived, and yet we can find a root in the semetic language that offers us a possibility that linguists feel comfortable placing some reliance upon.

I understand your contention, but I sincerely believe it offers no real comfort from a more holistic linguistical perspective. I did not respond to your mention of consonantal roots previously because I seen a problem very early on with the suggestion that amen derived from amaan. That problem being the fact that it simply does not follow the general rules that govern why we actually have derivatives. There are driving principles that vocabularies follow in the course of their evolution. Words derive from other words for very specific reasons which are always relative. It is not as haphazard a process as some may think. There's really no reason to believe amen derived from the word amaan, simply because the derivative serves absolutely no purpose beyond that which the root word already serves.

Actually a change like the one suggested would be considered an evolution of the word and not a derivation, such as 'thee' and 'the'. However, when words evolve the archaic version is generally retired. I wish you would take at a more holistic look at this, rather than merely one that rests entirely on plausible semantics. Linguistics is a very broad subject and the origins of words can be studied from a variety of perspectives. The first question we need to address is always: 'Why would we have this derivative? Knowing why we have the derivative, gives us an excellent clue to the reasoning and the enviroment in which the derivation was born.

'Why?' is the purpose the derivative serves, 'How?' is merely the mechanics that were implimented in its construction. With no purpose for the derivative, there would be no need for those mechanics. For example, we can create a vast number of semantically-plausable derivatives from the word: 'sin', ie.: sinn, sinni, sintio, sindi, sino, sine, sinite, sinido, ect. However, with no purpose for these derivatives, why would we even bother? Currently, I can see no purpose for the creation of this derivative, which seriously calls any semantics, plausible, or otherwise, into question. Manson48 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

1) "Thee" and "the" are not etymologically or derivationally related.

2) Amen does not derive from "amaan", whatever that is (not too sure what it's supposed to be a transcriprion of), but from the abstract triconsonantal root aleph-mem-nun or glottal stop, m n, and the fact you don't seem to grasp this indicates that you did not "look into this" in any way which gave very useful results... AnonMoos (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I offered 'the' and 'thee' as an example of an evolution of a word, not a derivation, which is what I said 'amen' is as related to 'aman' or as sometimes written 'amaan'. Anonmoos, you could not have read more than a few words of what I wrote. You're making entirely too much of this abjad rule, without even considering the vast array of other factors. I fully grasp your position, I just don't agree with it. Rather you consider the results of my research useful are irrelevant. You describe useful, as agreement with your position, as though that position is well settled among scholars, when in fact it is not. You're minimizing a whole lot of Hebrew history and a host of unknowns to make things fit for you. It's not the way it works. Manson48 (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the difference between etymological "evolution" and "derivation" is, but in any case the did not evolve from thee nor did thee evolve from the. If by "Aman"/"amaan" you mean the qal 3rd person masculine singular perfect verb form which would be spelled אםן, the root aleph-mem-nun hardly occurs in the Qal stem in attested Biblical Hebrew (only participles are found), and in any case, amen would not be derived specifically from the Qal 3rd person masculine singular perfect verb form. You have many misconceptions about linguistics, something which does not generally to qualify you to issue dogmatic pronouncements on the subject. AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're correct when you say: "I have no idea...". Read some 16th-17th century literature and check the spellings of some of the words. Trust me, many words have evolved in the same way as the and thee. The truth is there's really not much consensus in the matters being discussed here. The thoughts are wide and varied on the ancient languages. I read an academic paper tonight that suggests ancient Greek borrowed extensively from Egyptian. The common consensus is leaning more toward the Egyptian as the mother language. Most scholars already accept that the semetic languages have their roots there. Which does a lot of damage to the majority's position here. One thing for certain, it is far from being well settled. Manson48 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thence / Then

Ok this is minor comment - which I would have made on the editors personal page. Since he or she only logged under an IP address I'll put the comment here. Changing thence to then isn't a spelling correction. If anything it is updating an archaic usage. But, I think thence was just fine - as we are referring to more than a temporal development, but a linguistic and geographical one as well. See Merrian-webster online dictionary: Thence. I am not overly concerned - just wanted the editor to know it wasn't a spelling mistake.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest change to etymology

User 76.183.208.164 deleted the comment regarding academic support and its notes. I strongly believe that this was Manson. Such an edit should have been made after discussion on this talk page. The American Heritage link is not working - that is correct, however that does not merit removal of the entire sentance or the other note. In fact, it would be important to either replace the link with another working one, or, leave the reference without the link (it can still be looked up in a library.) As to the second note while not being a preferred source for wikipedia (since it comes from a web site) it does indeed support the conclusion asserted and appears to be reliable. Especially in comparison to the websites being used to support the assertion that some people believe in the egyptian or aum etymology. Those are also webpages. So, we can leave it as was - or delete the entire subject matter. That is my opinion. Any one else have an opinion regarding the sourcing of this section? Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree -- the edits were by the same anonymous IP who previously played an unconstructive role... AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not edit this section. I've always limited my discussion here and have not ever edited anything on this entire site ever. One would think that I would deserve respect for that approach. Rather than edit the page, I've only ever made suggestions and left the editing to the moderators. I take isssue with the accusation here and will make note of it. You guys are really quite unprofessional. Manson48 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If it was not you (Manson) - then I am sorry, and apologize. Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous IP is given to ALL CAPS, and Manson isn't... AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear up something, there are no 'moderators' on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and operates by consensus. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm never far away, if you want to know something, just ask. Contrary to popularily promoted opinion, I have no vial agenda here. Thank you. Manson48 (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to the whole 'moderator v consensus' issue. If you would, please explain to me exactly how we come to that consensus and how it is that someone can ban someone else? I thought I had read where someone had threatened to ban the user 'Lucky...' here on this page Manson48 (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Consensus for the principles. Blocking of users can be done for those who are disruptive of Wikipedia, for example by vandalism, or by deliberate flouting of consensus. Repetitive and pointless arguing can also be considered disruptive. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Etymology disputed

Here's some evidence that suggests the logic in the current etymology is severely flawed:

Egyptian - min, to place firm, fix, found.

Hebrew - amn, to stay, sustain, support, to found, make firm, sure.

Egyptian - amam, to hide; amen, secret place, Hades

Hebrew - amm, to hide, conceal, shut close, the hidden.

http://www.masseiana.org/bbbk11.htm

Here's an interesting page considering the footnote states: 'This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.' http://www.tripatlas.com/Amun Manson48 (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It's an old version of the page Amun. Remember that Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I figured as much. Manson48 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line here is the current etymology is obviously wrong. Massey and many other scholars explains why. Europe, by and through Rome, long ago took a strangle hold on global history and presented it as originating through the Europian Aryan race. True academic scholars disagree with this gross error. The consensus between these scholars, as the evidence suggests, sets Egypt/Babylonia as the cradle for mankind. Egyptian is the mother language. The scholars complain about their inability to break through this archaic wall establishment to present their evidence to the contrary. Those that do risk their livelyhood. There are voluminous records of scholars who lost their jobs for refusing to adhere to the apologist's scheme. So we live the lie and the globe spins around this psuedo-axis. Manson48 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "obviously" that you use here is presumably derived from the Latin for "completely without supporting evidence". Just like the word "true" in true scholars is derived from "people who agree with me". Manson, we've really had enough of you taking the approach that if you say something often enough then maybe someone, somewhere will start to believe it. If you don't have any actual evidence (and it's clear you don't) then please stop disrupting this page. As for living the lie, feel free to do that if you like. But I'm sticking with the truth. And Wikipedia, as is its policy, is sticking with verifiability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with this whole argument is this - where does the balance of 'proof' or even 'support' lie? I'd guess that the honest answer from any scholar worth their salt would be "the evidence is inconclusive" - yet this has been phrased as "no academic support for either of these views". Really? Do we have a citation from every single respected researcher in the world? No? How then can we be so sure? With an issue like this we should talk about the balance of probability, rather than assume that western traditional (or we could say Christian) views are correct until proven incorrect. Bienfuxia (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The conjecture is in the article. We certainly can't take seriously any argument based on 'Egyptian is the mother language'. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bienfuxia -- There's much less room for pure subjective opinion in many areas of technical linguistic study than you seem to believe. The fact that the basic meaning of Amen seems to be perfectly explainable by derivation from the triconsonantal root aleph-mem-nun or glottal stop-m-n immediately makes all competing hypotheses unnecessary and implausible -- unless highly-specific evidence to the contrary were to be found (which it hasn't been). There's also no duel of competing scholarships -- on one side there are the actual scholars of the ancient Hebrew and ancient Egtyptian languages, while on the other side there is a quasi-mystical/occult trend, certain of whose theories have been seized upon by some of the more extreme advocates of Afrocentrism... AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the argument about the Semitic roots, but I don't see that this renders any other theories as being automatically in opposition. There's no reason to assume that a root isn't loaned from another language and rebracketed, especially as Proto-Semitic is Afroasiatic and the two areas had a great deal of contact. As far as scholarship is concerned, Ancient Egyptian linguists tend to focus on Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Hebrew scholars are unlikely to make claims which would undermine Judeo-Christian religion. It is of course unfortunate that there are conspiracy theorists, occultists etc on the other side of the argument, but that doesn't make it automatically incorrect. What I'd like to see here is detailed rigourous unbiased research into the issue - it's just unfortunate that this doesn't seem to exist, yet. Bienfuxia (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The goal of science is not to arrive at a state of affairs where everything is considered just as likely as everything else (which actually means that we don't really know anything) — but rather to rule some things in and rule other things out with the highest degree of certainty which is realistically attainable. Obviously, there's a lot we don't know in detail about how people spoke 3,500 to 3,000 years ago, but a whole method exists of systematically positing economical inferences or default presumptions, which make some things much more likely than other things (unless specific contradictory evidence is found in any particular case). "There's no reason to assume that a root isn't loaned from another language" is not an assumption which can be used to make economical inferences — it's much more useful in the vast majority of contexts to start by assuming that words are not loanwords, unless specific evidence can be found that they are. See Occam's razor... AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not one of these ultra-relativists who insists there's no such thing as scientific truth, far from it in fact. What I'm objecting to here is not the making of a claim, it's the assumption that because there's no evidence the orthodox view must be the correct one. Of course we're talking about balances of likelihood here, and in this case what we have is two related languages which have a very similar word, which is used in a very similar way. A co-incidence? Very possibly, yes. But it also could be a clue that the two words are the same. Loanwords in a language are the rule rather than the exception - to take the most obvious example only 25% of English words have a Germanic root. I'd also contend that Occam's razor doesn't apply in the field of etymology - the ways words change in sound and meaning over thousands of years are complex enough to render any simple explanation inadequate, and in fact suspicious. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but a mere vague resemblance in sounds accompanied by a vague resemblance of meaning is really not accepted as being any kind of decisive or crucial evidence by itself for a valid linguistic relationship between words in two languages. And as already discussed as Talk:Amen/Archive_2#An_overview, the name of the Egyptian God already appears in the Bible at Jeremiah 46:25 -- and it does not appear as "Amen". Your theoretical abstract philosophical skepticism would be interesting in some contexts, but it has almost nothing to do with the vast majority of work done by linguists and scholars of ancient languages, and (based on what you've said so far), it does not point the way towards any specific useful revisions of Wikipedia article "Amen"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)