Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 9/19/05, Read, James C wrote:

>  Am I to understand that you are a jew that does not believe in the
>  exodus? Yet give such honour to Redford? This really is remarkable!
> 
>  That would be like meeting a Christian that does not believe in
>  salvation yet gives full credence to the Da Vinci Code book.

The whole point is that Redford is an eminent Egyptologist and your
consulting him on matters of Egyptology is something I was not
expecting but am nonetheless glad you are.  I can't believe you are
seriously comparing Redford to the Da Vinci Code or to Dan Brown.  
And I did not state I do not believe in the Exodus: I stated that I don't 
think that there is a suitable historical background which can be applied 
to the Exodus.  That is simple recognition of the problems involved in
such a comparison, and it is better to face the facts than to make 
believe they don't exist.  Only by realizing the problems, can you solve 
the problems.

> Anyway, I didn't Raamses in the 10th century and your 
> misunderstanding on this is based on a (bad) interpretation of what I 
> wrote. 

Again, a 10th century date for the Exodus is simply a misrepresentation 
of scholarship.

> I was saying that both a date of tenth century for the exodus and the
> concurrent pharoah being RaamsesII were demonstrably false. 

You don't demonstrate falsehood by proving that "400 years of 
affliction" is necessary for the Exodus.  Whether or not there were
400 years is not what will prevent Ramesses from being the Pharaoh
of the Exodus.  As for your quoting Redford afterwards, it is like I
said, that today scholars would be wary of assigning any date to the
Exodus.  Besides, there's an inherent contradiction in quoting Redford 
to object to a 13th or 10th (???) century date while supporting a 16th 
century date.

> That you tie the two together  is your own perogative but not what I 
> intended you to understand.

Whether or not it is true, at least we both understand what you mean
now.

> Okay! Let me see if I understand your system. First you accuse 
> people of not being familiar with the arguments. 

Because you referred to the reconstruction all the way back to 
Joshua as a reasoning for your dismissal of Ramesses II.  But 
scholars who dated the Exodus to the 13th century were not 
oblivious of the 480 years to the building of the Temple.  They
had their own explanation.  And you can read Yigal's recent
message for a more complete elaboration.  I agree too, that the
13th century date is still very problematic.  But comparatively, at 
least it has on the face of it, good reasons to make it attractive,
enough that a verse speaking of 480 years to the building of the
Temple hardly "disproves" it.  That it is the best suggestion, and
yet still rather problematic, shows just how hard it is to find a
suitable historical background for the Exodus.

> 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.

What linguistic point does all this have bearing on?  What strong
position was voiced against my opinions?  I did not shy away from
any claim here and always was ready to back it up, and I'm still
ready to back up my discussions although the Egyptology-related
discussions, I think Egyptologists should be consulted on matters 
of Egyptology, and depending on their opinions, I might even become 
convinced!  (It happens).

> So basically,in order to have a discussion with you about 
> anything linguistic

What linguistic thing is at issue here?  Do you mean the issue
of cognate roots?  I really think we are in agreement on that particular
issue.  And hey, we have different opinions re: Bible, Exodus, and Jesus. 
So why must any of those figure into the discussion?

> we have to accept your priori non-linguistic assumptions

I don't require you to accept any assumptions.  In fact, the whole
point in the discussion with Karl, who does not accept that the 
cognate roots are "undeniably evolved" (as you said it) from
a parent "Proto-Semitic" root, is that the 14th century or whenever 
your particular favor finds that the Exodus is to be dated is not an 
issue in that entire discussion.  So I'm the one who was arguing for 
not basing the linguistic argument on non-linguistic assumptions, 
not the other way around.

> (which are usually baseless)

Which assumptions of mine are baseless?

> and desist from proving them incorrect lest we discuss something 
> non-linguistic even though it has a direct bearing on the original 
> discussion. 

First the problem is that I have "non-linguistic" assumptions.  Now the
problem is that you want to discuss a "non-linguistic something" that 
has "direct bearing" on the original discussion.  Well, what direct bearing 
does the Exodus' date in the 16th or 13th or 10th century have on cognate 
roots or whatever it is you think the linguistic issue happens to be?

> Yet by the same token you case most of your cases on non-linguistic
> 'evidence' 

What non-linguistic quote evidence quote do I "case most of my cases" on?

> 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 

That is a misrepresentation of my position.  I will not get into this, though.

> (a dubious assumption at best).

I'd ask why, but I don't want to get into that either.

Yitzhak Sapir