In Defense of Hans Goedicke

048

The Washington Journalism Review, supposedly a monitor of media fairness and accuracy, has falsely and irresponsibly accused Professor Hans Goedicke of The Johns Hopkins University of attempting to pull off an academic fraud.^a

In the article by Washington Post reporter Lee Lescaze, the Washington Journalism Review charged Goedicke, head of the Department of Near Eastern Studies at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, with making an “insertion of a pair of signs in the crucial hieroglyphic text” relating to his theories of the Exodus. This insertion by Goedicke, said the article, amounted to an “epigraphic flim-flam.” The thrust of the article is that Goedicke “altered” the text and then tried to cover up this deliberate attempt to mislead, but was finally forced to “admit” his deception.

In fact, the two hieroglyphic signs Goedicke restored in the damaged text are the same signs that have regularly been restored in the text by generations of the world’s leading Egyptologists. Moreover, like his predecessors, Goedicke clearly indicated that the two signs had been restored and were not contained in the original inscription.

The hieroglyphic text is important in connection with Goedicke’s controversial theories relating to the Exodus and the Miracle of the Sea.

Goedicke’s theories of the Exodus have received wide publicity, beginning with a front-page story in The New York Times on May 4, 1981. The most extensive account of these theories was published in Biblical Archaeology Review.¹ According to Goedicke, the Miracle of the Sea, in which the Egyptians were drowned, occurred on a spring morning in 1,477 B.C.—about 200 years earlier than the date accepted by most, though not all, scholars. According to Goedicke, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was a woman, Queen Hatshepsut, ruler of Egypt in 1,477 B.C. Goedicke locates the Miracle of the Sea as precisely as he dates it, at Tell Hazzob, a site south of Lake Menzaleh in the eastern Nile delta. There the fleeing slaves stood on high ground while the Egyptians below were drowned by a tsunami or tidal-like wave that swept over the Nile delta. According to Goedicke, a volcanic eruption on the Mediterranean island of Thera/Santorini caused the tsunami. Other elements of Professor Goedicke’s theories include a new translation and a new interpretation of a well-known hieroglyphic inscription referred to by scholars as the Great Speos Artemidos Inscription. Goedicke claims the inscription includes an Egyptian version of the Miracle of the Sea, in which Asian Semites rather than Egyptians are drowned.

Goedicke’s fellow scholars have heavily criticized almost every facet of his theories, including his new translation and new interpretation of the Great Speos Artemidos Inscription. Most of this criticism has appeared in the pages of the Biblical Archaeology Review.²

But even extreme criticism of Professor Goedicke’s theories is far different from accusing him, as the Washington Journalism Review did, of deliberately and even fraudulently “alter[ing]” the hieroglyphic text in order to support his theories. Such a charge is clearly reckless and, in the circumstances of this case, approaches actionable libel.

The contested inscription is carved high up on the rock facade of the temple built by Hatshepsut at Speos Artemidos, on the Nile River near Beni Hasan. It consists of 42 vertical columns (or lines, as scholars call them) that read from right to left and from top to bottom. Near the top of line 41 is a space with room enough for about two or three signs that have been obliterated.

Almost from the time of its discovery, scholars have regularly concluded that at least two specific additional hieroglyphic signs had originally been carved in this space. So when they translated the text, they did so on the assumption that these two additional signs had originally filled this space. Of course, they appropriately indicated that the additional signs had been “restored,” to use the scholarly term for this process of completing the lacuna in the text.

It is not hard to understand the basis for this restoration—even without a knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphics. 049In hieroglyphics, “father” is spelled TF, that is, a semi circle and a horned viper. “Fathers” (plural) is spelled by repeating the pair of signs for “father” three times. Four repetitions of this pair of signs means “father of fathers.” Thus:

At the bottom of line 40 of the Great Speos Artemidos Inscription we see one pair of TFs. At the top of line 41, we see two more pairs of TFs followed by the obliterated signs.

“Father of fathers,” which would be indicated by four pair of signs (one for “father” and three for “fathers”), is a common Egyptian epithet and frequently appears in hieroglyphic inscriptions. Therefore, scholars regularly restore the fourth pair of TF signs in this text because it fits the context of the rest of the inscription, it fits the space of obliterated signs and it works grammatically. This is true of no other suggested restoration.

The first scholar to restore the fourth pair of TFs in this lacuna was Kurt Sethe, one of the greatest, most revered and respected Egyptologists of all time.³ He did so in his 1927 discussion and translation of the text.

In 1931, a very careful hieroglyphic scholar named N. deG. Davies made a new copy of the Great Speos Artemidos Inscription that has been used regularly by scholars since as the starting point for their translations. Pursuant to common scholarly convention, Davies placed hatch marks in the unreadable space near the top of line 41 to indicate obliterated signs. In 1946, after Davies had made his new copy of the text, Sir Alan Gardiner, who until his death in 1963 was the world’s leading hieroglyphic specialist, translated the inscription anew. Gardiner too restored the fourth pair of TFs.^b

In 1965, the eminent German Egyptologist Wolfgang Helck considered this passage from the Great Speos Artemidos Inscription. He too restored a fourth pair of TFs.⁴ Indeed, every scholar who has restored this part of the text has done so by adding a fourth pair of TFs.

Thus, Goedicke, who also restored the fourth pair of TFs, simply accepted the longstanding restoration previously adopted by leading scholars who considered this part of the text.

050

Moreover, Goedicke plainly indicated the restoration of the fourth pair of TFs by covering them with hatch marks and enclosing them in brackets, two separate scholarly conventions to indicate a restoration that cannot be found in the original. The brackets and hatch marks clearly appear in Goedicke’s copy of the hieroglyphic inscription that was published in the original New York Times story on May 4, 1981. In a telephone interview, author Lescaze admitted that at the time he wrote his article for the Washington Journalism Review he knew that Goedicke had enclosed his restoration of the fourth pair of TFs in brackets and hatch marks, yet Lescaze nevertheless left this out of his story.

Instead, Lescaze wrote that Goedicke was guilty of “alter[ing]” the text by “insert[ing] two signs at a spot in the text which had been found damaged and unreadable by Sir Alan Gardiner.” Gardiner, wrote Lescaze, “published the generally used text in 1946 after transcribing it from the stone.”

This, of course, is wrong. Davies was the man on the ladder who actually transcribed the text from the stone, not Gardiner. Gardiner translated the text from Davies’ transcription. It is clear from the published transcription that it was Davies not Gardiner who copied the inscription. Below the hieroglyphic copy are these words: “Davies’s Copy of the Great Artemidos Inscription.” That is also the title of Gardiner’s article in which he translates the inscription. In his copy of the original hieroglyphic text, Davies indicated the obliterated letters with hatch marks. When Gardiner came to translate from Davies’ copy of the inscription, Gardiner “inserted”—if that is the word you like—the same missing signs as Goedicke did.

Lescaze is also wrong because Gardiner did not find the text unreadable; Gardiner, like Goedicke, restored the fourth pair of TFs.^c Lescaze admitted to BAR that he did not know that Gardiner had made the same restoration that Goedicke made. Lescaze did not know this because he never read Gardiner’s article in which Gardiner, of course, notes the restoration.

Note how Lescaze’s use of words like “alter,” “add” and “insert” implies Goedicke’s covert wrongdoing. Lescaze does not use the word “restore” in key phrases of his article; instead, he writes of Goedicke’s “insertion of a pair of signs,” of Goedicke’s having “altered” the text, of the “addition” of signs. When Lescaze finally uses the word “restore,” he writes that Goedicke “admitted” and “conceded” “restoring” signs in the text, thus giving a connotation of wrongdoing to the perfectly proper scholarly endeavor of restoration.

Lescaze’s article is based largely on charges by a George Michanowsky, and the article frequently speaks in Michanowsky’s name. For example, we are told that Michanowsky gave a talk on Goedicke’s deception to the New York Explorers Club titled “The Great Hieroglyphic Hoax of 1981.” The charge that Goedicke is guilty of an “epigraphic flim-flam” is attributed to Michanowsky. Michanowsky has had no formal training whatever in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Indeed, he holds no academic degrees at any level. In a lengthy telephone interview with BAR, his response to any inquiry into his biography or his academic credentials was that this information could only be a potential basis for an ad hominem argument against him and was therefore irrelevant. In the end, he reluctantly told BAR a few details of his background. He is a 62-year-old native of Yalta, Russia, who came to this country as a teenager. He now earns his living in New York as a “consultant on aviation matters.” He is not a moron or an imbecile as, he says, Goedicke claims. There is no doubt that Michanowsky is an intelligent person. Although he is entirely self-taught in Egyptian hieroglyphics, he speaks with obvious knowledge and background on the subject.

Michanowsky argues that he has every right to criticize Goedicke and that the arguments that he, Michanowsky, makes should speak for themselves, their strength undiminished by his lack of formal training. “Either Goedicke’s right or he isn’t,” Michanowsky says.

But Michanowsky’s charges are, at best, unclear. In the past, he has apparently accused Goedicke of many kinds of errors. In his BAR interview, however, Michanowsky recognized that there was a gap in the hieroglyphic text which once contained now-missing signs. Restoration is proper if it is identified, he said. Michanowsky said he had no opinion as to whether Goedicke’s restoration is correct or not. Michanowsky said he has no views on what signs should be restored in the gap.

Michanowsky said he has only two disagreements with Goedicke (which, he said, should not imply agreement with Goedicke’s other points because Goedicke’s other points are not areas of Michanowsky’s concern). The first disagreement relates to a matter of translation and interpretation, not of restoration. Although Goedicke states that a literal translation of the restored text is “father of fathers,” Goedicke prefers to translate the phrase as “Primeval Father.” Moreover, Goedicke would interpret Primeval Father as a reference to the god “Nun, the primeval water.” Michanowsky argues that no Egyptian texts justify Goedicke’s interpreting “father of fathers” as referring to the god “Nun, the primeval water.” Michanowsky may well be right in his contention that Goedicke misinterpreted the phrase “father of fathers.” But this kind of argument is standard academic fare and involves no charge that Goedicke fraudulently inserted a couple of signs in the text.

051

Michanowsky also claims that Goedicke had denied making any restoration until he, Michanowsky, pointed it out. It is hard to understand this argument in light of the fact that the original New York Times article which printed Goedicke’s hieroglyphic copy of the text clearly shows the restored signs as both enclosed in brackets and covered with hatch marks to indicate that they were restored.

Author Lescaze defended his heavy reliance on Michanowsky on the ground that Michanowsky was supposedly confirmed by a distinguished Egyptologist of international repute, Professor Donald B. Redford, of the University of Toronto. According to Lescaze’s article in the Washington Journalism Review:

“Michanowsky, however, is not alone. Donald Redford, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Toronto, says that restoring the text as Goedicke did ‘is really not very kosher’.”

In a telephone interview, Redford told BAR that when Lescaze called him,⁵ he had not seen any coverage of Goedicke’s Exodus theories—neither the New York Times article, nor the coverage in BAR, nor Goedicke’s original paper—so he (Redford) did not know what Goedicke had done. According to Redford, when Lescaze called him, he told Lescaze that if Goedicke had made a restoration without indicating the restoration by brackets or hatch marks, that was not really very kosher. Lescaze then printed Redford’s comment without the conditional “if” clause.

Lescaze also failed to ask Redford a critical question which, in the interest of fairness and completeness, BAR asked the Toronto professor: The question is, “Do you agree or disagree with Goedicke’s restoration of the fourth pair of TFs?” Professor Redford asked that we call him back after he had an opportunity to re-study the inscription.

When we called him back, Professor Redford said he not only agreed with Goedicke’s restoration, but went even further: “I would certainly restore it that way; indeed, I don’t see what else could be done there, I don’t see what other restoration it could be.”

In sum, Lescaze reported to his Washington Journalism Review readers that Professor Redford said Goedicke’s restoration was “really not very kosher” when in fact Redford’s view is that Goedicke’s restoration is the only sensible one and he, Redford, would have made the same restoration.

We also talked to Edward F. Wente, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute. Wente specializes in epigraphy of the New Kingdom, the period of the Great Speos Artemidos Inscription. He told BAR that he too would restore the fourth pair of TFs. The four pairs of TFs, said Professor Wente, comprise a “known expression. Goedicke is certainly not guilty of tampering with the text.” Wente stated that, “Goedicke did not put in anything different than Gardiner in terms of the signs involved.”

By this defense of Hans Goedicke, we do not mean to imply that we agree with his theories concerning the Exodus and the Miracle of the Sea. But whether Professor Goedicke’s theories are correct or not is irrelevant to our point. Our concern is with the irresponsible charges of bad faith that have been hurled at a distinguished academician. The question we are dealing with here is whether Professor Goedicke was deliberately trying to deceive by improperly inserting signs into a hieroglyphic text without saying so. Clearly, he was not.

Nor do we wish to imply that we agree with Goedicke’s translation or interpretation of the Great Speos Artemidos text. Here there is legitimate room for disagreement—but not for a claim of deception.

In his translation, Goedicke notes in brackets that the phrase means “literally father of fathers,”. so there is no basis whatever for any claim that he is attempting to deceive anyone. (Lescaze says he didn’t know this because he never bothered to get a copy of Professor Goedicke’s translation of the text. Nor did Lescaze read it in BAR.)

052

Although Goedicke notes that a literal translation of the phrase is “father of fathers,” he prefers to translate it “Primeval Father.”^d

According to Goedicke’s translation and interpretation of the inscription, the Asian Semites were destroyed by drowning. “Father of fathers,” says Goedicke, should be translated Primeval Father. Goedicke interprets Primeval Father to refer to the ancient god Nun, the primeval water. In Egyptian cosmology, Goedicke says, Nun represents the principle of primeval wateriness, much like the watery abyss referred to in the first chapter of Genesis when the universe was without shape or form; that watery abyss out of which the world was created in a divine structuring process. In short, the Asian Semites were drowned by water, which, according to Goedicke’s translation, came unexpectedly, “not in its season.”

In a highly critical evaluation of Goedicke’s theories, Professor Eliezer Oren of the Ben Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba, Israel, says that Nun, god of the primeval water, is not mentioned or even alluded to in the inscription. The “father” referred to in the inscription, says Oren, is probably another god, Amun-Re, who is frequently mentioned elsewhere in the inscription.⁶ But Oren does not take issue with Goedicke’s restoration of the fourth pair of TFs or with Goedicke’s literal translation “father of fathers.”^e

For present purposes, the difference of interpretation and/or even translation is beside the point. What is irrefutable is that Professor Goedicke properly restored the text with a fourth pair of TFs (a semi-circle and a horned viper), as did Gardiner and Sethe and Helck before him; and, as Redford says, that is the only way that the text can sensibly be restored. More important, Goedicke indicated his restoration by placing hatch marks over the restored signs and by enclosing them in brackets, as published in the New York Times. Finally, in his translation, as published in BAR, Goedicke gives in brackets an indisputedly correct literal translation of the restored phrase as “father of fathers.” Professor Goedicke has been guilty of absolutely no impropriety, although one may well disagree with his interpretation and/or his translation.

What is finally irrefutable is that Professor Goedicke has been badly maligned by Lee Lescaze and the Washington Journalism Review. Lescaze’s article is, at best, a sloppy piece of research and reportage that should never have been published. It amply reflects the fact that, as Lescaze admits, it was written over a weekend to meet a Monday deadline. The fault is especially egregious because the article appeared in a magazine that sets itself up as judge and guardian of media fairness and accuracy. And Lescaze is touted as someone who “frequently writes on the media.” One is reminded of the lines from Shakespeare’s Measure For Measure: “Thieves for their robbery have authority/When judges steal themselves.” The only remaining question is whether the Washington Journalism Review and writer Lee Lescaze will simply ignore this article or whether they will publish a retraction and apologize to Professor Goedicke, as he so clearly deserves.

The Washington Journalism Review, supposedly a monitor of media fairness and accuracy, has falsely and irresponsibly accused Professor Hans Goedicke of The Johns Hopkins University of attempting to pull off an academic fraud.a In the article by Washington Post reporter Lee Lescaze, the Washington Journalism Review charged Goedicke, head of the Department of Near Eastern Studies at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, with making an “insertion of a pair of signs in the crucial hieroglyphic text” relating to his theories of the Exodus. This insertion by Goedicke, said the article, amounted to an “epigraphic flim-flam.” The thrust […]