In the early years of the Twentieth Century Theodor Hopfner
assembled a massive, five volume, collection of all the Greek and Roman sources
discussing Egyptian religion.[1]
Looking through his compendia it is hard not to be impressed with Hopfner’s
diligence and erudition. He seems to have read and extracted everything
conceivable on his subject. Not only are all the major classical authors
included but even the most obscure authors are as well. His thoroughness is
daunting. Yet for all his effort, his work gathers dust on the shelf. The only
time I can recall it ever being cited is in Hugh Nibley’s works. It is not
because Hopfner is not accurate or encyclopedic but for another reason.
Classical authors writing about Egyptian religion are
outsiders, not insiders. We have thousands of documents written by insiders who
knew their religion better and actually understood it. There is thus no reason
to rely on accounts written by outsiders who clearly did not understand the
religion correctly. Hence Hopfer is neglected because his work is largely
irrelevant. Outsiders rarely get details correct. One of the few outside
accounts given any credence is Plutarch’s De
Iside et Osiride. One cannot help wondering why this fanciful tale is
trusted because it is not corroborated by native sources. It is probably
because Plutarch spins a good yarn even if it isn’t accurate.
Plutarch is a sympathetic source. Other authors were
downright hostile. One Egyptologist, for example, dismisses one such by saying:
“Juvenal . . . is not relevant to the present discussion, since . . . he is a
satirist for whom ridicule — directed indifferently toward Roman, Greek
or Egyptian —was an occupation, . . . he was . . . not disposed to be particularly
charitable, and . . . he had been expelled from Rome precisely for his
propensity to compose offensive remarks.”[2]
These remarks, coming from a source well-known for directing ridicule and
offensive remarks indifferently, is ironic, but it is still wise counsel. In
looking at religion we do well to avoid paying heed to those for whom ridicule
is an occupation, who are not disposed to be charitable, and who have a
propensity to compose offensive remarks.
These considerations should apply not just to ancient Egyptian religion but to the study of all religions, and particularly to Mormon studies. In looking at Latter-day Saints, with so much insider information are outsider accounts really necessary? Are those who are not disposed to be charitable relevant? Studies giving preference or even credence to such accounts seem less interested in characterizing Latter-day Saints as in caricaturing them.
[1]
Theodorus Hopfner, Fontes Historiae Religionis
Aegyptiacae, 5 vols. (Bonn: A. Marus and E. Weber, 1922-25).
[2]
Robert K. Ritner, Jr., “Implicit Models of Cross-Cultural Interaction: A
Question of Noses, Soap, and Prejudice,” in Life
in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond,
ed. Janet H. Johnson (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1992), 290.
