Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 13/11/2005 19:53, tladatsi AT charter.net wrote:

> ...  This is the key literary 
> (irony) and theological (Yahweh`s control of the situation 
> despite appearances to contrary) point.
>
> How would either of these point be served by the author if 
> the king in question were Hyksos?  As is agreed, the fact 
> that of he very existence of the Hyksos was (and is) 
> largely unknown.  Even if the author were aware of this 
> historical nuance, it would be counter-productive to try to 
> use this nuance in story. ...
>
> This is an entirely different issue from what occurred 
> historically in Egypt during the Hyksos period and any role 
> the Israelites might have played then.  This is an 
> archeologically issue that does not inform the translation 
> or meaning of Ex 1.  
>
> It is also an entirely different question from how Ex 1 was 
> composed and how the historical events in Egypt may have 
> influenced its composition.   If we accept that Moses is 
> the only author who composed it after the Exodus and he 
> himself understood all of these nuances, he made no serious 
> effort to incorporate them into the text. ...

But, Jack, in the above you are clearly assuming that the text was 
written as a literary rather than historical composition a long time, 
probably many centuries, after Moses. This is an assumption not accepted 
by all parties to this discussion, and so it needs to be properly argued 
and made explicit. So of course if you then come back and write "If we 
accept that Moses is the only author who composed it" we end up with a 
contradiction with our previous assumption that he was not the author. 
You can't argue for a position by first assuming it and then proving 
that yours is the only position which agrees with your assumptions.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/