Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Akhenaten and the Hebrew Religion

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: MarianneLuban AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Akhenaten and the Hebrew Religion
  • Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:41:58 EDT

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?






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page