[b-hebrew] Raamses
Read, James C
K0434995 at kingston.ac.uk
Mon Sep 19 03:57:48 EDT 2005
Okay! Let me see if I understand your system. First you accuse people of not
being familiar with the arguments. Then when you see that they are and they
have a strong position against your opinion which has a bearing on the central
linguistic point you resort to accusing posters of discussing material unfit
for the list.
So basically,in order to have a discussion with you about anything linguistic
we have to accept your priori non-linguistic assumptions (which are usually baseless)
and desist from proving them incorrect lest we discuss something non-linguistic
even though it has a direct bearing on the original discussion. Yet by the same
token you case most of your cases on non-linguistic 'evidence' and insist that
it should be of higher value because it is extra-biblical on the premise that
extra-biblical sources are more honest and reliable (a dubious assumption at best).
-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Yitzhak Sapir
Sent: Mon 9/19/2005 4:32 AM
To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Raamses
On 9/18/05, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> Indeed to the last point. But in fact your argument is back to front. It
> was the dating of Solomon which came first, e.g. from Ussher and as more
> recently refined e.g. by Thiele. And then Shoshenk I of Egypt was dated
> from the synchronism with Solomon, on the dubious assumption that he is
> the "Shishak" of 1 Kings 14:25. There is little good evidence from Egypt
> for the date of Shoshenk I, and what there is is hard to reconcile with
> the mid 10th century.
>
I was afraid of this... I cannot but point you to Kitchen's article at -
http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/docs/volume2%20No2%20Dec2002/Kitchen%20paper.pdf
[Kitchen, Kenneth A., "Ancient Egyptian Chronology for Aegeanists",
Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 2.2 (2002)]
In this article, he:
1) mentions Galil's work as an independent and different system than Thiele.
Thiele's analysis was important, but it's not the only way to analyze the
data, and not the only "solution."
2) independently works out in p. 8 that Shoshenq I lived between 945-939 BCE
through 924-918 BCE, in order to prove, independent of the Bible, that Shoshenq
I and Shishak of the Bible were contemporaries, as far as the Bible is
concerned.
That it works out with the Bible is nice, but it's not necessary for
any Egyptologist.
3) "Shishak" of 1 Kings is actually "$w$q" in the Ktiv and if one considers that
his successor several generations later is spelled out in Akkadian as
"shushinqu"
one gets that "$$nq" of Egypt, "$u$inqu" of Akkadian, and "$w$q" of Hebrew make
a best fit at $o$enqu or $o$inqu, where the n drops in Hebrew as it
does in other
examples. See Kitchen's comments in the above, p. 7.
Generally, if you wish to continue arguing this I would suggest taking it up on
the ANE list or the Egyptology list. There is simply no sufficiently qualified
experts on this list to answer questions of this sort. There is much
misinformation on these issues and these discussions seem to wind on with
no end unfortunately, but at least, it doesn't have to wind on with no
end on this
list.
Yitzhak Sapir
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list