Talk:Manetho

Section on antisemitism

I think that entire section sould be removed. Theres lots of talk of Maneto refering derogatorily to Jews, however there's not a single quote from him demonstrating that. It seems this is entirely based on Josephus' Against Apion where he confuses the Hyksos with the Jews, for which there's no evidence; they were probably semitic, but not necessarily jewish, and also even if Manetho demonstrated some animosity in his description of them that probably has more to do with the dislike of being ruled by a foreign people rather than a racial/religious hatred of them. To finish, to attribute the modern sense of antisemitism to the ancient egyptians is ultimately anachronistic; the Romans also persecuted early Christians but their motivations were entirely religious and not racial. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It is at least currently very poorly written and the text certainly doesn't demonstrate what the title of the section claims. I can't currently check the first source for the section, but the second, from Pieter Van der Horst, leaves much to be desired in terms of its academic quality (such as citations, bibliography - the usual things you would expect from an appropriate source. The article seems to be more of a summary of an interview rather than something he wrote for publication in a journal). The third is an article on Haaretz which is also not what I would consider to be a typical source for claims about ancient history (again: lack of citations, bibliography, etc).

The fourth source is, I think, just being outright misused. The sentence it is being used to support is this: 'Negative themes of the Jews followed, such as being characterized as misanthropic or tyrannical.'. It is unclear from how it is written whether the claim is that Mantheo's text then contained these charactarisations, or that other people then made these characterisiations because of Mantheo's work, but neither is a claim made by Berthelot (who in fact, says things such as 'The idea that invaders or intruders from an Asian background poluted the country, that they somehow carried a disease and had to be expelled is a well-known literary motif in Egyptian literature. The question of when exactly it was applied to Jews is still debated.').

antisemitism is not a modern idea, and it is perfectly possibly to write sections about ancient antisemitism, but what currently stands here is not fit for purpose. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I also read the Haaretz article (well, the few bits that I could suffer) and researched the author, which lead me to his wikipedia page which mentions some controversy he was envolved in regarding Islam IIRC, but from what I gathered from the wiki page it didn't seem that serious, if only slightly offensive in its wording. I dindn't say that antisemitism is a modern idea, I said the current definition of it, where race and religion are jumbled together, is relatively modern, from the end of the middle ages, that's why I specifically used the example of early Christian persecution; Jews were initially persecuted for their religion and religious practices as opposed to their race, since racism - the notion that some races of people are inherently superior or inferior than others - is also a relatively recent idea ( by "recent" I mean the last 3 or 4 centuries). For instance, the Romans had no problem with having emperors from the colonies, they had one from Hispania and one from Syria (don't remember the names). Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I meant for my comment only to leave open the possibility that someone could write an appropriate section (and it should, naturally, address the meaning in its historical context). Apologies that that was not clear. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. I just felt the need to create this discussion since the last time I had visited this page, a couple of years ago, there was nothing regarding antisemitism and I was taken by surprise when I came back and saw a whole section on it, with what appeared to me to be largely dubious claims. I won't try to edit it though, simply for the reason that, even though I have a fairly decent command of it, English is not my native tongue. I still think the most logical thing to do is to eliminate the section, or if it's kept, it should at least be reworded to clarify that such statements are disputed or fringe. Have a nice day! Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this, too, though by the time I got to working on it it was just a paragraph and there were only two sources, one negating the claim. I abbreviated the paragraph and simplified the language considerably, although it is still not clear if it is only true that Josephus wrote that Manetho wrote negatively about the Jews, and if the claim is in fact that later authors interpolated or outright fabricated the negative stories, thus using Manetho's name for their own ends. I too cannot access the book sources and have not located any reputable online. Cobalt blur (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I have access to them. I checked them when I pruned the section back, but didn't have the bandwidth to dedicate to doing more than what I did, and if I were forced to rewrite it now I'd certainly look for other sources (such as those already mentioned by yourself and A. Parrot). I believe I can access all of the sources currently listed on the page. So if there's specific things I can help with, I'm happy to poke around. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Cobalt blur (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I just created a draft of a separate article on just Aegyptiaca. I think it needs to start from scratch with the Verbrugghe/Wickersham research to structure it, at least to get started. Cobalt blur (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

“Aegyptiaca” section is long, messy, and unsourced

I've been doing rewrites, sourcing, and cleanup and am satisfied with the state of the introductory sections. I read through previous topics for reference. The problem is as stated in the subject line. (I added a length template to the existing essay and sources ones, but they are not visible to me in my mobile app).

Of the references, I can access only the relevant chapter of the V-Wickersham book online, and the Waddell book online. I personally enjoy the subject, but am hesitant to take on re-writing of what is after all the meat of the subject, particularly as I am an amateur.

Given that the Waddell is in the PD, I wonder starting over with a synopsis solely from that source is called for, as a starting point? The translation is from 1940, but I have not yet come across any criticisms of it in the V-W chapter or elsewhere. Its being online will obviously aid in creating block quotes of the original fragments.

Comments/suggestions appreciated. Cobalt blur (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your improvements to the article! I have Verbrugghe and Wickersham and may be able to help out, though I don't have the time to rewrite the whole section myself.

I think the glaring problems are the subsections on king lists and the transcription on pharaonic names, which simply go into too much detail and should both be greatly reduced and merged into "Sources and methods". The "Overview" section should be retitled "Contents" but otherwise looks mostly OK. "Similarities with Berossos" may be a valid subsection but should probably be shortened, and "Transmission and reception" should definitely stay.

Outside of the Aegyptiaca section, there should be a section on the other works attributed to Manetho and whether they survive, as well as on the Book of Sothis and why it's considered to be pseudepigraphic. Verbrugghe and Wickersham sum this up nicely, so I can write the section myself, maybe in the next few days.

One last thing is that the topic of antisemitism, currently the last paragraph in the article, should be probably covered somewhere, but not in the prominent position it currently has. The citations of Manetho in Against Apion are so confusingly written that no one knows if the original passages in Manetho even discussed the Jews at all—both Verbrugghe and Wickersham and the most recent authoritative commentary on Against Apion, by John M. G. Barclay (2007), make this point. (And only after writing this comment did I see that your comments just above also address this problem.) A. Parrot (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the shout-out! I forgot how I landed on this page but the subject is fascinating for so many reasons and was dismayed by the state of the article, meaning there's only thing to do…

I'm happy to proceed with your improved outline. And concur about the "Anti-semitism" mention. If it remains at all it should not be the article's conclusion.

I've not yet used the Sandbox tool but suspect this might be a occasion to start. Cobalt blur (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I just created a draft of a separate article on just Aegyptiaca. Cobalt blur (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Article Draft:Aegyptiaca is up

I think it deserves its own page, and more importantly, that it be started from scratch with the Verbrugghe/Wickersham research to structure it, at least to get started. As I said, I've got online to access to the relevant section so can at least make a rudimentary outline of their own position. There are also basic questions that I see lay persons like myself have about transmission and historicity that I think the current section only makes more muddy that I think can be better explained and answered. Cobalt blur (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Image dispute

It looks like the image commonly used for Manetho is in dispute now. Granted it likely doesn't depict him, but I don't think it warrants removal unless a agreement with the community is made. 129.89.234.100 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It definitely does not depict him. The rationale for including it is that it purportedly represents the insignia of a priest of Serapis, though I don't even know whether that is true, and it's not clear whether Manetho was an actual priest of Serapis in any case. Moreover, when an image appears in the lead of a biographical article, readers will expect it to depict the subject of the article. I just don't see a reason to include it. A. Parrot (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with A. Parrot, if the image is at the top and made the thumbnail many readers skimming through the article will not read the caption and just assume it is a bust of Manetho, I know I did the first few times I was on this article. I am however, open to the possibility of moving the image to somewhere else in the article. PharaohCrab (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm partial to using the image, and hoped that the disclaimer in the caption would suffice to justify using it. I think Manetho the man and historical figure merits some token representation, whatever it is. I believe that evidence shows that the bust of the priest can be a plausible representation of an Egyptian religious elite of Manetho's time. As for moving it further down, I understand the argument in favor. I'm the editor who put it back on top so I'll abstain from any straw poll. Cobalt blur (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Changes to "Contents" section and images

I replaced the existing "Contents" which was unsourced with a new brief synopsis with source/citations and breakdown by Volume/Dynasties/Periods for easy reference. I also removed the anachronistic painting depicting the arrival Ptolemy. I believe it does not belong in this article as it is, again, entirely anachronistic (painted 19th. century) and does not purport to depict Manetho or any representation of an Egyptian priest of this era. Cobalt blur (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Continuing work on "Manetho" and "Draft:Aegyptiaca"

I'm really trying to organize the "Manetho" article to keep the focus on Manetho the author and his body of work as it exists in fragments. I do anticipate the Aegyptiaca article in draft form being published soon, and so have streamlined the section in "Manetho" on that single work. There is more to expand in "Manetho", particularly on fragmentology, the classification of his fragments, testimony (attestation), sources of fragments other than the four most-discussed, and the German sources (Felix Jacoby notably) of Verbrugghe and Wickersham. Cobalt blur (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

"Aegyptiaca" main article is live!

Go see it: Aegyptiaca (Manetho)

I added a section on fragment scholarship and cut down the section on Aegyptiaca, added a link to main article. Cobalt blur (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)