Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egypt Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Things to add

(Currently this article is a stub)

  • Where is the papyrus currently? see below at official name
  • What is Ipuwer (personal name, place name...)?
  • Who is Jon Van Seters?
  • Is there disagreement about the interpretation of the papyrus?
  • Anyone have a picture of the papyrus that we can use?
I have provided the Van Seters reference (his credentials will not be easy to obtain). There seem to be alternative views on its placement in history.
Ipuwer seems to be the narrator.
I could not find a picture for GFDL use.
There are many online sources discussing its interpretation, but I had not the time to find out an authoratitive view from an established Egyptologist. JFW | T@lk 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official name

Leiden Papyrus #344 according to xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/Ipuwer.html. While I don't consider such a web site authoritative I will (at least provisionally) accept their word for the offical name. RJFJR 23:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I could not access the museum's catalogue link from work, but this would confirm its location. JFW | T@lk 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Exodus"

The identification with the Exodus is not generally accepted by scholars. This Egyptology site refers to the Exodus association as that of "fringe historians."

I think this should be made clear in the article.--Rob117 21:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think "fringe historians" is a POV term. I have replaced it with "some", which indicates clearly that these are in the minority. I have also provided some links supporting my assertion that religious organisations seem to prefer this "fringe" interpretation (no surprise).
As I said above, we need an authoratitive review from a credentialed Egyptologist to be represented. Anyone an idea? JFW | T@lk 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
these "religious organizations" are themselves "fringe". I don't think the Catholic Church has a position on the papyrus. These seem to be American born agains or Bibilcal literalists. Mainstream Christians would not give a damn about whether this papyrus documents Exodus. I am a bit tired of the assumption that it is "no surprise" people are crackpots as soon as they follow the Christian religion. Lots of Christians are perfectly sane. dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is the Catholic Church non-fringe and a respectable Jewish author yes-fringe? I'm not sure why you are attacking my comment; I placed it in "quotation marks" because others have labeled this interpretation in that way, not because I was suggesting that the views were fringe. My point was actually that the religious organisations were likely to prefer the interpretation that confirms the historicity of their belief. JFW | T@lk 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The Catholic Church represents a billion people. One Jewish author is one Jewish author. If Judaism as a whole didn't think this papyrus important, but Michael Scanlan considered it vital it'd be the same deal.--T. Anthony 10:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramses II not the Pharaoh of the Exodus

  • Ramses II had a long and prosperous reign. There is not the slightest documentary or archaeological evidence that he drowned in the sea, or that he had to deal with anything like the Plagues of Egypt or a massive slave revolt.
  • The only evidence that ties Ramses to the Exodus is the statement in Exodus 1:11 that Pharaoh forced the Israelites to build the city of Raamses. However, archaeologists know very well that this was built c.1720 BC, 500 years before Ramses II, and the megalomaniac Ramses II changed the name to his own. Thus, Exodus 1:11 is evidence against Ramses II as Pharaoh of the Exodus.Das Baz 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Exodus and Thera-Santorin

Several people have dated the Thera-Santorin eruption to the time of the Exodus. Thus, theories connecting Ipuwer to either the Exodus or to that great volcanic upheaval are quite congenial and compatible with each other. Das Baz 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of papyrus

I read some interesting information on one of the links: "It is impossible to give a date for the composition of this document. The surviving papyrus (Papyrus Leiden 334) itself is a copy made during the New Kingdom. Ipuwer is generally supposed to have lived during the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period, and the catastrophes he bewails to have taken place four centuries earlier during the First Intermediate Period." Apparently it is said that the events that happened were during the First Intermediate Period. It should be updated to say so.