Talk:Ra

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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

I tried to make sense of mangust, and I came up with two possible meanings, perhaps related. First, is mongoose, and second, is a pharoah hat or crown. Since ichneumon is also mentioned, I wonder if mangust might simply be deleted. --Jose Ramos 03:40, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Radium

Ra can stand for the element Radium, no? So shouldn't the page for Ra be one of those splitting pages asking a user if he/she meant the deity or the element?

   I guess if you want Radium, you search for Radium, not Ra.

[edit] Hebrew Meaning

I am wondering if there's a point to include the hebrew meaning of Amon-Ra to the article. In hebrew "amon ra" means "lots (of) evil". --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 04:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unless you could find a very strong etymological link (which seems entirely possible, since the ancient Egyptian language was likely related to the Semitic languages), this remains just an interesting coincidence and should not be included, in my opinion. --Shotput 19:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew is quite related to Egyptian, about the same as french is to italian, for example. But I doubt that the egyptians would have called their chief god "evil". I.e. "the sun is Ra" translating as anything like "the sun is evil" is really rather unlikely.

It is possible that the hebrews (whoever they were) added the word into the language, and, resenting egyptian rule, used it derogatively, i.e. "the chief god of them - the egyptians - is evil", thus "Ra" being, to the hebrews, a synonym for "evil", and thus over time, the connection being lost. This is a more likely explanation. ~~~~ 20:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. The Hebrew expression starts with H and ends with Ayin. The folk etymology cited above is utterly unbelievable.

Regarding the statement, "Hebrew is quite related to Egyptian, about the same as french is to italian": Hebrew is a Semitic language, and Egyptian a Hamitic language; they thus belong to separate langauge families. Even within the same family, Arabic, a fellow Semitic language, is far closer to Hebrew than is Egyptian, and yet Arabic and Hebrew are not inter-comprehensible (as are, to at least a limited degree, French and Italian). The Semitic and Hamitic languages are related, forming the Hamito-Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic language phylum. Thus, the relationship between the two is more like that between, say, Gaelic and French, or Farsi and Urdu. That is to say, recognizably related (especially on close inspection), yes; closely similar or inter-comprehensible, definitely no. ---Turmarion, 22:38, 5 Jan 2007

[edit] Hegrem

Hergrem is another egyptian god

[edit] Eye of Ra

The Eye of Ra is facing the wrong direction, the eye shown in the article (left eye of Horus) is actually the Eye of Thoth. The Eye of Ra is the right Eye of Horus.

[edit] Sun-god

Some say that Ra is a sun-god and others say he is not. What is true about this and what is not?

Both. It depends on WHEN in egyptian history you are talking about. Egyptian religion covered 3000 years. It changed a bit over this time. --Victim of signature fascism 09:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. It would still be nice to know more details, and their sources. In school my teacher told us that we know Ra was a Sun-God bc he has a yellow disc above his head. Wasnt the disc actually carved in stone and yellow painted by scientists bc it was believed to be a sun? Wouldnt that mean that it could actually be anyting?
The truth is that though sometimes the colour was added afterwards, in some protected corners, of some temples, traces of the original colours still remain. Besides, representations of Ra -and other gods- were also done in papyrus that, thankfully, still survive. There's such a papyrus dated c.1350 BC that depicts Ra in falcon form with seven gods of the Ogdoad. The falcon has an orange disk above his head, so at least by this time he was already a solar deity.Lexie Herrera 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hathor and Ra

Hathor was Ra's daughter who happened to be in the role somehow of the EYE OF RA. One point in Hathor's life she was in deep trouble for almost wiping out mankind but Ra stopped her just before anyhting worst happend that she killed yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.77.68 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


In that story, Hathor is sometimes said to be the same godess as Sekhmet. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other than budge

Budge's works are ubiquitous but not worth very much- his own old employer, the british museum, has gone so far to denounce them. Additionally, nothing that old should be the basis of an article. Budge's monotheism beliefs are more or less totally thrown out and this article really needs a rewrite with better sources cited. Thanatosimii 07:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Budge's work is just fine. He has been attacked in a battle so old, the roots have long been forgotten. Certainly, he shouldn't be the only source, but that means that someone, perhaps you, should add in other perspectives. The British Museum began bashing Budge when his rival took over. That's where that comes from. And from what I read of the feud, it essentially is that Budge didn't believe that the Egyptians were complete idiots because they were pagan.
KV(Talk) 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please rethink this, KV. Any feud was a very long time ago and I doubt has much if any impact on modern Egyptologists. It is also important to recall that the position and importance of gods varied over the many centuries of dynastic Egypt. It is ok to discuss the history of the development of modern thinking about Egyptology, and if there are still supporters of Budge's view on monotheism to give them their due, but we need to rework these articles as I think we've agreed. It isn't just that Budge wasn't always right, but he also (according to an Egyptologist friend of mine) stated things with a certainty that today's scholars would agree isn't warranted. She also says "Budge's translations and transliterations of ancient Egyptian texts are considered outdated by most serious scholars in Egyptology, and most students would not rely upon Budge's works in most serious research." Best wishes, Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this isn't academic research and we have a lack of other sources. I do believe that the way it is phrased it purports it as Budge's theory. The feud does carry on through the British Museum, however, and the intention of the original poster was to remove the one cited source this article has. Now, Budge can legitimately be reduced to a footnote with good sources, but we dont' seem to have those sources at the current time. Your Egyptologist friend might be able to help with that though, allowing for a massive expansion in the article. KV(Talk) 15:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be following this debate about Budge around. Budge did a great service to Egyptology by publishing so much material, including the Papyrus of Ani which is and was a much celebrated Book of the Dead from the British Museum. But he just needs to be read with some reservations and to remember that some of his interpretations have been superceded. I wouldn't say that there is still a feud about him but because his books are widely and cheaply available most people start by reading his 'Gods of the Egyptians' and so on. The thing is that Egyptology as a science has taken great strides since his day - they understand so much more and can translate much more accurately than at first (hieroglyphs were only first translated at all in the 19 century). The understanding of the religion has grown but it is still the case that various writers project on to it what they themselves understand or believe. For instance some Egyptologists deny any mystical thought in Ancient Egypt but this has been countered by people such as Naydler in his "Shamanic Wisdom in the Pyramid Texts" ISBN 089281755-0 which is worth a read if you get the chance. To understand what the Egyptian texts are on about we need to get into their way of seeing the world which in my view is only possible if we grasp the magical/mystical perspective on reality. Apepch7 (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expert?

I would like to help out with this article. I will therefore add information as and when as well as citing resources. I can do this as time permits. If any quires please contact me at my talk page.

Apex156 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ra in Arabic

Just out of curiosity, why is Ra's name given in Arabic, given that he was an ancient Egyptian god?

Good point; in this case the arabic version is not relevant.Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of Citations

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra&diff=103615296&oldid=103490269

That is where the article was completely rewritten and all sources were removed (most of them I had entered). How does everyone think we should rectify this? Revert or reentering the text and sources?

KV(Talk) 23:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait at least until the weekend before deciding to act unilaterally.
KV(Talk) 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I must say that this, the most important of the Egyptian Gods, has a completely terrorized article. I'll have to do some major editting, and probably before I mess with Ma'at.

KV(Talk) 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Already began compiling sources, I'll put it in all at once in a major rewrite. This time I won't wipe out all the heiroglyphs, pictures, citations, and information like that anon.
KV(Talk) 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The english spelling of ra?

Why does Ra spelled with an "a" sound wrong. I keep saying it my self and it just doesn't sound right. Try it first with a soft "a" then a hard "a" it just doesn't sound right.

[edit] spelling and pronunciation

As the Wiki-managers have noted, this article is indeed in need of documentation for its statements. At the very start we are told the earliest known form of the god's name was *ri:ʕu, but where does this reconstruction come from? It's also not very clear from the font that the second consonant is supposed to be a voiced pharyngeal, as at the beginning of the word "Arab" when pronounced by many Arabs. From Peust 1999 (Egyptian Phonology) p.47: "< ʕ > is a symbol for an original dental stop /d/. The pronunciation during the Middle Kingdom may have been something like /'riddV/ or /'liddV/ (V = unknown vowel). By the New Kingdom, several phonetic developments including the shift /d/ > /ʕ/...had taken place. The word was now pronounced as /'reʕə/...by the Roman period...contracted to /'re/" The last pronunciation is similar to English "ray", especially as pronounced by the Scots or Irish. This was how it was pronounced in most of the ancient Coptic dialects, although the conservative southern Akhmimic dialect still kept the old vowel: /ri/(as in first syllable of "reason"). The form used by the Romans and Greeks is in line with the northern dialects' /re/. In modern-day English-speaking environments, one can either preserve the old way with the "ray" pronunciation, or use an Anglicised form, which would be "ree"(cf. the Greek goddess of youth, Hebe, usually pronounced as "heebee" in English). There seems to be no reason for the "rah" pronunciation. If, however, the spelling "Ra" has its origin perhaps in the 19th century, the self-centered English at that time may have felt that "A" was just the right symbol to use for the IPA /e/ sound, in which case they actually meant "Ra" to be pronounced /re/, and then this connection was forgotten in a later age. This has happened before: the zodiac sign Libra used to be pronounced like the first syllable in "library", but (during the 60s?) when it came into popular usage, poorly educated people assumed it was Italian or something, and started saying "leebra", which is now the new standard. In any case, I would not recommend using the "rah" pronunciation unless its origin can be documented.Jakob37 (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)