[b-hebrew] Akhenaten and the Hebrew Religion

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Fri Jul 23 06:41:53 EDT 2004

----- Original Message -----
From: MarianneLuban at aol.com

> In a message dated 7/22/2004 8:26:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> dwashbur at nyx.net writes:

> The Sheshonq/Shishak identification has not been "seriously called into 
> question" at all.  And there would be no good reason linquistically and in terms of 
> time.  "Shishak" is a very good approximation of Sheshonq because Egyptian 
> /n/ was a notoriously weak phoneme that often even disappeared in the writing of 
> the Egyptians, themselves, for that very reason.  Like /m/, /b/ and /p/, it 
> often elided into the following consonant in pronunciation.
>   Suffice to say that stating such things as if they were  > 
> > absolute fact shouldn't be done.  The "conventional wisdom" THINKS it's the 
> > case, but again, we're not certain.
> > 
> > 
> By that logic, everything can be questioned that is not absolutely written in 
> stone.  However, the conquest of Judah of Sheshonq I *is* written in 
> stone--and can still be seen in Egypt.
>   And apparently you didn't read my final > 
> > paragraph below, because in it I said I don't really see the need to find a 
> > "better candidate."  It's clear that I'm not going to get through, so I'm 
> > out 
> > of this topic.
> In order to "get through" you are going to have to do better than just argue 
> from cryptic negativity--on any topic.  My guess is that you have been reading 
> David Rohl.
> Have you?


This discussion is off topic, so I will limit myself to this one comment.

Many of us are linguists, not historians, so I decided to take a few hours and look up some of what this is discussing. So I looked up an Egyptian pharaoh list just to see what was claimed: one of the first things I noticed was the number of question marks, mostly as to dates, but also even to identities of who were pharaohs. And this was from a list that agrees with you for the most part.

Sheshonq I’s record of attacking Judea is based on an interpretation of one name, and in the record that I read, that one name was identified in 1821 and it is in dispute. It does not match the picture given in Kings and Chronicles of Sheshak.

I never heard of David Rohl before, but now I find that he’s just one of many who give different answers to what they percieve as difficulties with traditional dating.

For me, my reading of Exodus gives clues that at that time, Israel was living under the heel of a Hyksos pharaoh, not a native Egyptian one. Not proof, just clues. But it’s enough for me to say that we don’t know enough to say conclusively.

Karl W. Randolph.
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list