Biblical Hebrew Forum

[MarianneLuban AT aol.com]

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


> > > At this time, the Tanite Dynasty was still strong.  One of their 
> number,
> > > Sheshonq I, had conquered Judah and looted the temple.  For that the
> > > wrath of the prophets was directed at Zoan.  I prefer to shave my legs
> > > with Occam's Razor.  The simplest explanation.  However, if you have
> > > another site in Egypt that you think is a better candidate for Zoan, I
> > > would be interested in hearing about that.
> 
> The Sheshonq/Shishak identification has been seriously called into 
> question, 
> 
> and with good reason both linguistically and in terms of time line, but I 
> won't go into that.
> 

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?