Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

----- 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?

Marianne:

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
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm