Talk:Thoth

No dates?

I'd expect something to date the earliest record of Thoth and also the rough periods/locations when he was worshipped widely. Sorry if this isn't within the wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:BC02:8200:91AA:F3AC:5358:A027 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit

I expect this to indeed be edited mercilessly, as it will be a welcome improvement to what was there before. I just covered it up with the first informative site I could find; http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/thoth.html

Hieroglyph not found

Just wanted to alert people that there're 3 "(hieroglyph not found)" in the alternate names for Thoth box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.196.46 (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

The hieroglyphs in the alternate names box are rubbish - they don't transliterate to the names given at all. I am not sure what the point of this is - I want to delete unless someone fixes it properly.Apepch7 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC) hi

IPA

Am I insane/finally going blind from using this 'pedia too much, or is there no IPA pronounciation guide in this article? I can't figure out why 999 is removing the admittedly imperfect pronunciation guide with "IPA is all that is needed" when there's no IPA code on the page - right? Or is the unicode Egyptian somehow doing double-duty? I freely admit I don't speak IPA, but I had to ask... -- nae'blis 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is unusual. There is a page somewhere about transcription in Afro-asiatic languages that shows traditional transcription compared to IPA. I'll try to find it, ans write an IPA transcription of the name in the article. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the comparison is at Proto-Semitic language. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Depictions of Gods

"These forms are all symbolic and are metaphors for Thoth's attributes. The Egyptians did not believe these gods actually looked like humans with animal heads."

Is this absolutely true? Or is it merely representative of "official teachings" or the beliefs of the priestly class/religiously educated? Sort of like how Catholicism has teachings with regards to the status of the saints, or Buddhism has teachings about Buddha not being a "god," but you see local variations of "folk practice" which may be different than the official doctrine.

In other words, I could see a bunch of Egyptian priests emphatically insisting the depictions are merely symbolic, while at the same time there's some Egyptian merchant driving his caravan along the roads, worrying that he might do something to offend the giant almighty aardvark-headed demi-human who rules the desert. Macroidtoe 21:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is more a modern interpretation created by modern scholars to deal with the fact that many of them (like the ancient Greeks and Romans) find it inconceivable that such a great civilisation would worship animals; the truth is probably much more complicated. I know of no Egyptian text which actually states that the gods did not look the way they were depicted, and various scholars (from Plutarch to te Velde in his 'A Few Remarks upon the Religious Significance of Animals in Ancient Egypt', 1980) have pointed out that Egyptians had a generally higher opinion of animals that most moderns, and certainly than the 19th and early 20th scholars who came up with the idea that the part-animal forms of gods were just hieroglyphs, and not meant to literally represent the gods. The most obvious point to make is that they had numerous sacred animals, treated like living gods. On the other hand, they did recognise that the true nature of the gods was complicated and perhaps unknowable; there are many hymns which refer to this idea, and in the (early CE) story of Setna and the Mummies Thoth comes to the magician Setna in his 'secret form' (which unfortunately he doesn't describe). The best summary I've seen is in Eric Hornung's Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt, where he says something to the effect that while the true nature of the gods might be unknowable, the animal, human and half-and-half forms are among those they could (and did) inhabit. In the one description I can think of where a human meets a god and the god is described, The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor, the god is a terrifying half-man, half snake. Fievos (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not these lines are accurate or not, the reference is completely wrong. I looked up p.44 in "Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs" on google books and the page solely dealt with the hieroglyphic grammar of noun phrases and and the translation of honorific transpositions-absolutely no mention of the religious beliefs of the ancient Egyptians. The phrase is completely unsourced and seems to be just personal belief. Unless a proper reference is provided, I will delete next week. Thanks! roh'nin

Different printings of books differ in their pagination. The reference is correct in my paperback copy of the 2000 edition. In any case, it's the essay about the Egyptian gods at the end of Chapter 4, on nouns. If that is not sufficient, I can provide other sources. A. Parrot (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, found it, you're right. Though, I wish the author had supported his statement with some additional references. It is a very bold statement and seems to contradict common conception. If you have some, I do think additional references would be very helpful. But as it stands, the phrase and citation look fine. Cheers! roh'nin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.76.103.156 (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Could it be that his name evolved into the English word "thought"? 24.4.131.142 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Thought" is the past participle of think which comes from Old English thencan - ultimately with an Indo-Eurpean root of *tong meaning 'to know'. I can't see any link to AE. The name Thoth is a Greek version of the name which was probably something like Djehut or Djehuti.Apepch7 22:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You administrators of Wikipedia are administrators of cover, lie and falsification of world history. There is no evidence that the meaning of Thoth is "He who is like ibis". It is far away the name Thoth with Hbj+ty. Doesnt make any sense. The truths stays to the Albanian Language the only one language in the world that can give the meaning to a lot of ancient words speacially to the ancient words for Zeus and Aphrodite. Aphrodite can be explained perfectly by Albanian Language of today and it means "aphro" is the same with Albanian Language word "afro" which in english mean "near" and "dite" which mean "day" This is why the planet of Aphrodite in the sky is called exactly Aphrodite because by shining in the dark skies foretells that the day is near to start. This is one proof through thousands other evidences to show that albanian language is the oldest of Europe. And now turning to the word Thoth it is easily explained by albanian language like most of the words and toponyms of Ancient Times. Toth can take its meaning from Albanian Language and specially from the word "thotë" which in english language means "to tell" "to say" and it takes sense because Thoth came to tell to the people the secrets of the Gods and the secrets of the life and death. For God's sake stop manipulating and falsificating world's history. Say the truth as it is. God will curse and blame you if you will not allow the truth to be said and the truth stands to the Albanian Language. The key to desipher all the misteries of ancient times stands to the Albanian Language. Say the truth and accept that most of the meaning of the words and names of Ancient Times derives from Albanian Language. Do a good thing as a human being that you are and accept the truth. Do a good thing and accept that the meaning of ancient terms comes only and only from Albanian Language.109.236.43.37 (talk)

Do a good thing and cite some professionally published, mainstream academic sources, or as far as we're concerned, there's no evidence for your claims. We don't accept original research, because often that stuff is no better than deliberate falsification.

Also, see WP:Assume good faith. If you aren't willing to do that with others, then you don't belong here, plain and simple. We'll do better than you in that regard and assume the good faith from you that we want you to assume from us (as God, whichever religion He favors, instructs), but again -- if you continue to act is if there's some deliberate conspiracy to suppress some sort of divine truth that you are the only prophet of... We'll see no point in talking with you or listening to you, even if you are here in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging

This page should not be merged with the Taautus page, they aren't similar enough. And Thoth is an Egyptian god, and Taautus is a Phoenician god, and those are two completly different countries. Yugiohguy1 (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a mess

I've had to revise the lede as Thoth's counterpart is not Ma'at (and someone has copied this to other articles). This is probably because virtually all of the article seems to come from one source, Budge (the etymology comes from an even older source, someone must have written on it since the 19th century! I'll slap a tag on it of some sort. (talk)

Do you have an alternative source? The best known information to Wikipedia at this time is Budge, if a better source comes up that contradicts it, then that's the time for a switch. The goal is to find a better source. Now where do you get your information from that this is not the truth, that would be a good start. KV(Talk) 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't know any sources, it's editors who do. And it must be obvious that people have written on Thoth, etc. during the last 100 years, editors should try to get recent sources and never rely on century old ones for archaeology, Egyptology, etc unless they are doing a history of the subject or something like that. Good thing the author of the Sheshat article had something better although they didn't provide a reference. Anyway, see my revision of the lede with a modern day source.Doug Weller (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

By Wikipedia, I mean the community, and the best that was put on the page to reflect that the community knows of it. Of course, I just saw you place the tag and post here; I had not seen you add the source yet. However, I believe it was without a page number, mind adding it? I'm the one who put all the Budge stuff up because it's all I had at the time, especially the only thing that went into depth on any of the deities. I don't know where Budge got the asertion, but he is a great source for finding basic bio information. It wasn't until the past week or so that I had access to academic papers that might provide a larger variety. I'm also going to just post your name there to sign the original statement for you. I am curious though as to the change in thought over who was the feminine counterpart, I suppose I'll look into that later. KV(Talk) 22:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. There is a page number there, isn't there? I've ordered a book on the subject. WHere did you post my name?

Working together hopefull we can improve some of this. Budge was working very early in the history of Egyptology, a lot has happened since and Budge's translations aren't always the best. Maybe together we can get something better, although I admit that Egyptian religion isn't a strong point of mine -- it varies so much over time and between localities. However, I am on a couple of good mailing lists and have a friend who is an Egyptologist. I found the Thoth/Ma'at stuff in an article on Egyptian astrology, evidently copied from here. The stuff on Egyptian astrology in Wikipedia seems to be sourced from Western astrology books with no knowledge of Egyptology, so not exactly good. :-) Doug Weller (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Hopefullyl we can imiprove it, though I do have commitment to fixing up a deleted article before looking up more on Djehuty. The problem with sourcing seems to be that most on this subject is rather obscure and Egyptology doesn't sell unless it's a complete overview or a picture book these days. :/ KV(Talk) 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Two reliable books on Egyptian Gods are 1) The Routledge Dictionary Egyptian Gods and Goddesses by George Hart ISBN 0-415-34495-6 (paperback) and 2) The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt by Richard H. Wilkinson ISBN 0-500-05120-8. Budge is old hat as is the monotheism thing - most people subscribe to the idea of henotheism and the best explanation of this is in Hornung's Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt 'The One and the Many" ISBN 0-7100-9481-7. You also have to be careful with the idea of female 'counterparts' - the Egyptian gods were not all married off in happy families like the Greek pantheon. They were very ancient and changed with time. There is an obvious association between Thoth and Ma'at (wisdom and truth) and as the text mentions there is also Seshat who was to do with measurement. I agree most Egyptology books are coffee table books with pretty pics and not much detail. But Budge did publish a lot with hieroglyphic texts and so on which is why he is still much quoted despite his rather old fashioned idea. Apepch7 (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The bit about Derrida towards the bottom first of all doesn't make much sense (grammatically, semantically) and is also unclear to the point of being wrong. It is perhaps worth noting Derrida's reading of Thoth, but it should be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.15.228 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are there no citations in the Mythology section? A lot of its claims seem a bit dubious. It's reference to the Osiris myth is cursory and vague, and the reference to Judeo-Christian religious tradition seems rather irrelevant. It also gives the impression that Apep was a god, and its claim that in the Ogdoad tradition, Thoth creates Re is both rather vague (which Ogdoad tradition? Which text?) and sounds a little unlikely. If no-one else wants/can clear this up, I'll rummage around in some secondary texts and translations and see if I can't scrounge up a better section. 92.25.110.71 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Nefertum

I think that would be helpful, that section is poor. I believe there is there is a tradition in Hermanopolis of Thoth as the creator of the other gods - this is not particularly remarkable in a henotheistic religion. The word Neter (God) was applied to all sorts of beings from major creator deities to underworld demons so Apep as a Neter again is not that difficult - but could be misleading perhaps to a modern reader. But there is no doubt that this section needs improvement after all it even calls Thoth the goose that lays the golden egg!!!Apepch7 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Symbolic Heads?

I think the bit saying that the Egyptians didn't think that Thoth had an ibis head needs citation.Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

During my previous studies and in my visions contrary to the depiction of the animal-headed form; ibis were kept in Thoth's temple in cages and his followers would offer fruits and other gifts to baboons and discourage harming them, the sacred animals were considered spirit helpers of Thoth Himself. It seems the animal-headed depictions were probably just renderings and not the actual form, although I suppose Thoth can theoretically manifest in whatever form He wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwanka (talk • contribs) 19:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted

I took the liberty of deleting the following:

A text entitled The Emerald Tablets of Thoth-The-Atlantean has been claimed to have been translated by a man named Doreal. The introduction claims them to be written by an Atlantean Priest-King named Thoth, who settled a colony in Egypt after Atlantis sank. Doreal further claims the texts are 36,000 years old.

I personally believe the lost continent of Atlantis existed and it quite possibly influenced the ancient Egyptians. But Egyptologists almost unanimously in reject these theories as no evidence supports them. Until such evidence surfaces in sufficient quality and quantity to contradict them, I suggest such connections be omitted from Wikipedia except in articles written as speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.30.232 (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Female counter part.

This page says it is Seshat, but on the page for Ma'at it says she is Thoth's female side. 67.5.156.26 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hermes, Thoth and Enoch

Some have linked Thoth with Hermes, and Hermes with the mysterious Judeo-Christian figure of Enoch. I don't know this works out, but comparisons may be appreciated if they can proven to be relevant. ADM (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Exodus story

It would be interesting of we could connect Thoth to the Exodus story. For instance, if we accept the idea that Thoth is close or related to Enoch/Hermes, then Thoth would also be of special value for the Jews, because the Jews also had a veneration for Enoch. Accordingly, Thoth could have helped the Jews flee Egypt and enter the land of Canaan, which is also known as the Promised Land. ADM (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a program of original research to me. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation of the heiroglyphic name for Thoth

Shouldn't it be pronounced "dehewetwey" for the second "common name" for Thoth? The "hand" symbol was pronounced "d", not "dj" (which was I10 on the sign list - I believe it was some sort of snake). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.16 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian name "Thoth" cognate with Semitic names "Daud" and "David"

Isn't it worth a line or two in this section, that the Egyptian name "Thaut" pronounced with a unvoiced "t' becomes voiced when it crossed the border to Arabia and the semitic people pronounced it "Daud" and it then enters the Hebrew Bible as "David"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameshaiyer (talk • contribs) 01:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be if it was reliably sourced to be a real cognate, and not original research or a false cognate. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Aspirated T?

In the Name » Etymology section (at end of the first para) is "In modern Egypt, tour guides pronounce the name as "Thote" or "Tote" with an aspirated initial consonant." Is "aspirated" correct here? I would have thought it would have been glottalized or pharyngealized as an emphatic /ṭ/ would be a reasonable modern Arabic sound to represent the Ancient Egyptian ‹Dj›. There's no citation given for this, so I'm left speculating. :P — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Greek letter theta was pronounced as an aspirated "t" (technically, an aspirated voiceless dental plosive), at least in Classical Greek. The "th" letters at the beginning and end of the name "Thoth" represent the thetas that are present in "Θώθ", the Greek rendition of his name. So, the tour guides would have some reason to pronounce the name that way. I would guess that the statement, having no citation, is based on somebody's personal experiences. Even if that person heard a few tour guides say the name, it may not be representative of most guides—I doubt they're very consistent in their pronunciations. Considering those issues, I'll just remove the statement. A. Parrot (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Friends of Sabbath Reference

I'm moving this section to the talk page for a bit of discussion. There are a couple of issues to discuss.

1) Can you please provide a proper citation for this reference. I am not the only editor that has brought up copyright concerns. In that citation can you please provide a page number for the specific section you are quoting for this support?

2) Can you edit your submission for proper grammar, including capitalizations? Also please review a bit to ensure it is written in an encylopedic manner.

3) Can you offer a bit to support that this source meets WP:RS requirements?

Here is the relevant text:

Early Christians identified Thoth with the Archangel Michael, and Jews with Moses.

Thanks,

Squatch347 (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@User:Squatch347 I fail to see the copyright issues. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia's standards have declined so low that SOURCES DELIBERATELY MADE FREE BY THE WRITERS AND INSTITUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM are off limits now?

I will restore the edits when I feel better.

Squatch347, falconfly: I'll address your dispute, both here and at Talk:Uraeus, on this page because there's more to say about the text about Thoth.

The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible is beyond doubt a reliable source. Perhaps Squatch347 was reacting to the Friends of Sabbath site that hosts it, which looks... not so professional. As to whether the link to the dictionary is a copyright violation: I can't find anything announcing its free release, but several places online host copies of it, including the University of Michigan website and Archive.org, which says it's under a public-domain license. In any case, there's nothing wrong with citing the dictionary without linking to it. The claim about the uraeus and the seraphim, under discussion at Talk:Uraeus, is supported on page 743, and the claim about Thoth is supported on page 863.

Ideally, though, our articles would say under what circumstances Thoth was equated with Moses or with Michael; such identifications can hardly be universal traditions in Christianity or Judaism. The dictionary doesn't really say more than Falconfly's text does, but it cites a couple of more detailed sources. The connection with Michael is described in "Thoth und Michael" by a G. Lanczkowski in Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, 1956, which doesn't seem to be easily accessible. The connection with Moses is discussed in "The interpretatio judaica of Thot-Hermes" by G. Mussies in Studies in Egyptian Religion Dedicated to Professor Jan Zandee, which I have; I'll look over it to see what it says. A. Parrot (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Mussies is discussing the equation of Moses with Thoth-Hermes in the work of Artapanus of Alexandria. Mussies describes the parallels between the two that enabled the comparison and also notes the major differences that Artapanus glossed over. We may want to say a little about that here, but we shouldn't present it as a firm tradition within Judaism—our article on Artapanus even notes an argument by Erich S. Gruen that Artapanus was joking when he made the comparison. A. Parrot (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That is fantastic, thanks @A. Parrot! You are completely correct that my concern stemmed primarily from the host cite and the lack of specific citation to the actual work. Another editor brought up the copyright issue in their edit of Falconfly's post so I thought it made sense to expand that concern to the other edits using the same reference. Thanks for putting that to bed with the validation of public-domain via archive.org to clear up that.

I completely agree about citation, we don't need to provide an additional link, I would suggest a standard book citation template with the pages added. Something a la Becking, Bob & van der P. W, Horst & van der toorn, Karel. (1999). Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Journal of Biblical Literature. 115. 10.2307/3266385.

Your work in the last paragraph is spot on. I think the initial addition implies that these were broad Jewish and Christian precepts when given what you point out above, these seem to be far more limited. The Christian aspect seems somewhat limited to Hermeticism or Gnosticism as well. I think it would be warranted to clean up and expound on Falconfly's text with some of this addtional context for inclusion. Do you want to take a stab at that (you seem more familiar with the material)? Or I can and you can poke holes. Squatch347 (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Squatch347, Falconfly: I've written a bit about it, and about the later traditions that compared Hermes Trismegistus with Moses. Details on that subject mainly belong at Hermes Trismegistus, but because Artapanus was writing at the point in time where Thoth began transforming into Hermes Trismegistus, as it were, I thought it worth mentioning here. I put my addition in the History section rather than the lead, though the existing text is so poorly organized, it could go in almost any section except Depictions or Etymology. A. Parrot (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a great addition, thanks A. Parrot. Squatch347 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Listing of Parentage

This Wiki page belonging to Thoth is missing its listing of Parentage as others have on theirs. Why is that? There are two well attested and known accounts of his birth and parentage. The most well attested and recognised version is from the Osiris Myth, defining the event of his birth via the ingestion of Hor(us) sperm by Set(h) making those two his parents by default. There is also a well attested version of Ra birthing him from his lips as he has been known to do so with other Gods.

Therefore his listing of parentage should be listed as: Ra or Set(h) and Hor(us)

The Wiki Page for the Osiris Myth documents and cites this version of birth well however none that I can see document the other version well. 109.158.18.247 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Tuhatmӑš

еg. ḏḥwty, ḏiḥautī - borrowed into the Chuvash language as Tuhatmӑš 5.101.23.89 (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)