The name "Ammon" in the Book of Mormon

Parent page: Book of Mormon Names

Book of Mormon Names and possible Egyptian correlations—Piankh, son of Herihor, the High Priest of Amon

Nibley comments on the Book of Mormon names "Pahoran," "Paanchi," "Ammon," and "Korihor" and possible Egyptian sources for these names:

Paanchi, the son of Pahoran, and pretender to the chief-judgeship, has the same name as one of the best-known kings in Egyptian history, a contemporary of Isaiah and chief actor in the drama of Egyptian history at a time in which that history was intimately involved in the affairs of Palestine.3 Yet his name, not mentioned in the Bible, remained unknown to scholars until the end of the nineteenth century.

This Egyptian Paanchi, whose name means "He (namely Ammon) is my life," was the son of one Kherihor [Herihor] (the vowels are guesses!), the High Priest of Ammon [Amon], who in a priestly plot set himself up as a rival of Pharaoh himself, while his son Paanchi actually claimed the throne. This was four hundred years before Lehi left Jerusalem, and it had historic repercussions of great importance; not only did it establish a new dynasty, but it inaugurated the rule of priestcraft in Egypt; from that time on, "the High-priest of Amon . . . could and constantly did reduce the king to a position of subservience."4

It should be noted that Nibley's information comes from 1948 (almost 70 years old), and new information has come forth since that time that provides some corrections to Nibley's information. The name "Kherihor" is in reality "Herihor," and "Paanchi" is in reality "Piankh." It is also not certain whether or not Piankh was Herihor's son (successor) or predecessor. ^[1] Nibley also speculates on the political relationship between these individuals.

Now in the Book of Mormon both Paanchi and Korihor are involved in such plots and intrigues of priestcraft. The former, to gain the chief judgeship for himself, tried to achieve the assassination of his two elder brothers, who bore the good Egyptian names of Pahoran (meaning "man of Syria or Palestine"—a Horite) and Pacumeni (cf. Egyptian Pakamen), while the latter charged the judges with trying to introduce into the New World the abuses of priestcraft which the people knew had been practiced in the Old, "ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority" (Alma 30:23).

It is apparent that with their Old World names and culture, Lehi's people brought over many Old World memories and ideas with them, as was only to be expected.^[2]

The feasibility that some story of intrigue involving an attempt by Herihor's son Piankh to take over his father's position was carried hundreds of years forward into Book of Mormon times cannot be determined. The comparison is interesting, but does not provide any sort of evidence.

In Nibley's map of Egypt shown in the April 1948 Improvement Era, however, he does indicate, according to the understanding at the time, that "Paiankh" [Piankh, rather than Paanchi] is the son of "Kheridor" [Herihor].

A grouping of Egyptian names similar to several names found in the Book of Mormon. Nibley, "The Book of Mormon as a Mirror of the East," Improvement Era (April 1948) p. 203

Book of Mormon Names—Rules of Egpytian Name-Building 1

The most common name heard in the Egypt of Lehi's day was the most common name heard among the Nephites, that of Amon or Ammon (the two spellings are equally common, and Gardiner favors Amun), the god of the empire, who unlike other Egyptian deities never took animal form, was regarded as the universal god, and seems to have been an importation into Egypt from the time of Abraham.12 His name is very often used in the building of other names, and when so employed it changes its sound according to definite rules. Gardiner in his Egyptian Grammar states:

A very important class of personal names is that containing names known as theophorous, i.e. compound names in which one element is the name of a deity. Now in Graeco-Roman transcriptions it is the rule that when such a divine name is stated at the beginning of a compound [the italics are Gardiner's], it is less heavily vocalized than when it stands independently or at the end of a compound.13

The author then goes on to show that in such cases Amon or Amun regularly becomes Amen, while in some cases the vowel may disappear entirely. One need only consider the Book of Mormon Aminidab, Aminadi, Amnihu, Amnor, etc., to see how the rule applies in the West. In the name Helaman, on the other hand, the strong vocalization remains, since the "divine name" is not "stated at the beginning" of the compound. Since the Semitic "l" must always be rendered as "r" in Egyptian (which has no "l"), Helaman would in "un-reformed" Egyptian necessarily appear as the typically Egyptian Heramon.

By checking the long Egyptian name lists in Lieblein and Ranke's works, the reader may satisfy himself that the element Mr is, next to Nfr alone, by far the most common.14 It is very common in the Book of Mormon also. In Egyptian it means a great many things, though its most common designation in proper names is "beloved." Thus the Egyptian king Meryamon or Moriamon is "beloved of Amon."^[3]

Notes

1. ↑ Steven R. W. Gregory, "Piankh and Herihor: Art, Ostraca, and Accession in Perspective," Birmingham Egyptology Journal 2013. 1: 5-18.Gregory notes, "Nonetheless, based on the identification of Piankh as Herihor’s son in a procession of Herihor’s family depicted in Khonsu Temple, the assertion that Herihor preceded Piankh as Hm-nTr tpy n Imn, first servant of Amun, at Thebes dominated accounts of the period for much of the Twentieth Century. Once it was recognised that the identification of Piankh in the scene in question had been erroneous – a situation existing at least from Wente’s 1979 publication – the Herihor-Piankh sequence became less secure and, in 1992, Jansen-Winkeln presented a convincing argument that it should be reversed. Nonetheless, based on the identification of Piankh as Herihor’s son in a procession of Herihor’s family depicted in Khonsu Temple, the assertion that Herihor preceded Piankh as Hm-nTr tpy n Imn, first servant of Amun, at Thebes dominated accounts of the period for much of the Twentieth Century. Once it was recognised that the identification of Piankh in the scene in question had been erroneous – a situation existing at least from Wente’s 1979 publication – the Herihor-Piankh sequence became less secure and, in 1992, Jansen-Winkeln presented a convincing argument that it should be reversed."
2. ↑ Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 3rd edition, (Vol. 6 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), Chapter 22, references silently removed—consult original for citations.
3. ↑ Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 3rd edition, (Vol. 6 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), Chapter 22, references silently removed—consult original for citations.