The name "Korihor" in the Book of Mormon

Parent page: Book of Mormon Names

The Egyptian name Herihor

Hugh Nibley comments on a possible Egyptian name as a source for "Korihor." It should be noted that Nibley's "Kherihor" is actually "Herihor."

The full title of Kherihor [correct name is Herihor] before he became king in Thebes. In the Book of Mormon (Alma 30) Korihor is sent by Ammon, whose office of High Priest over the people of Ammon has important judicial and political functions, to be tried before "the high priest and chief judge of the land." Just such a combined and general authority was enjoyed by Kherihor in Egypt as Chief Servant (Hem) of Amon. The Ammon in the Book of Mormon has a brother by the name of Hem.^[1]

From Nibley, "The Book of Mormon as a Mirror of the East," Improvement Era {April 1948) p. 202.

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. ^[2] 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.^[3]

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—Location of specific Egyptian names

In The Improvement Era for April, 1948, the author published a map showing the clustering of Book of Mormon names in the up-river country of Egypt, south of Thebes. The map bore the caption:

The tendency of Book of Mormon names to turn up in definite limited areas and in close association with each other is a strong indication that the resemblances between the Old and New World titles are not accidental.5

As a reader of the article will perceive, we were, at that time, at a loss to explain a phenomenon which we felt was "not accidental." But soon after, we came across the answer in Professor Albright's observation that when Jerusalem fell the very Jews who had persecuted Lehi "[hid] in the wilds during the siege," and when all was lost fled to Egypt. In particular they went to upper Egypt, where the Jews had a very special settlement at Elephantine, far up the Nile. Albright even suggests that the main colonization of Elephantine took place as a result of the flight from Jerusalem at that time.6 Since Egypt was then the lone survivor against Nebuchadnezzar, it was only to Egypt that his enemies could flee. But since Egypt was also an objective of Nebuchadnezzar's victorious campaign, the safest place for any refugee to that land would be as far up the river as he could get. That is therefore where one would logically expect to find the Book of Mormon names, that is, the Jewish names of Lehi's days; but before he knew the explanation, this writer was puzzled by the fact, which to him seemed paradoxical, that our Book of Mormon names should congregate so very far from home.^[4]

Notes

1. ↑ Hugh Nibley, "The Book of Mormon as a Mirror of the East," Improvement Era {April 1948) p. 202.
2. ↑ 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."
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.
4. ↑ 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.