Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:08 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:
>
>  Jim:
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> “It was Ezra, under horrendous circumstances, who initiated a
>> radical, ultra-southerly reinterpretation of the geography of the
>> Patriarchal narratives after the Exile.”
>> Where is your evidence for this? What historical sources reference this
>> claim? Or is this just fiction made up to fit your religious beliefs?
>>
>>
> I have to agree Jim. This claim you have made several times without
> providing your reasons for such an assertion.
>
>  As for Egyptian history, most of it is based on the interpretation of a
>> second century BC priest
>>
>
> Hi Karl. Really? I didn't know that. That is interesting to know. Do you
> have the name of the priest and/or of his 'historical' works? I'd like to
> find out more about this guy.
>
Whoops, I mentioned from memory, and I had the date wrong. It was third
century BC, name of the priest Manetho.

>
>  (so much for “secular”), how accurate was he? Or
>> was his record ‘enhanced’ by listing some kings more than once, taking
>> advantage of the ancient Egyptian practice that kings were often called by
>> multiple names, to emphasize that Egyptian history was older than Greek,
>> to
>> show the primacy of Egyptian culture over Greek? In short, was he
>> propagandizing instead of giving an accurate history, a common practice in
>> those times?
>>
>> These seem to be two of your main pillars, both of which have to go your
>> way
>> in order for your theories to be correct. Assuming a random distribution,
>> that gives a 25% chance of being correct, just from these two. To add
>> another ‘if’, you assume that (MLQ is Hebrew, or a Hebrew influenced
>> Aramaic
>> name, again an assumption with no historical evidence to back it up.
>>
>> Evidences pointing against your thesis include the fact that Thutmosis III
>> had another name, Sisherke, almost a dead ringer for $$Q, possibly
>> pronounced “Shishakke”, who lived after Solomon.
>>
>
> Are you implying that the aforementioned Egyptian priest made up a King?
>
I’m implying that he made up several kings, by listing kings by, for
example, once by his given name, and a second time by his royal name, and
possibly other names as well. Or more accurately, we cannot rule out the
possibility. I implied that he did so deliberately, though for accuracy I
need to allow that he may have been confused and did so inadvertently.

>
>  Another is that Genesis
>> preserves parts of an ancient literary style that went out of use during
>> the
>> early to mid bronze age:
>>
>
> Do you have any evidence for this? As far as I am aware we don't have any
> Hebrew manuscripts dated to that age (wish we did) and this line of
> 'evidence' merely furnishes new issues for debate.
>
No we don’t have any manuscripts that old (were it that we do) but we do
have documents from other cultures, and they have revealed literary formulae
that appear in Genesis, but not in later books. One of them is that the
title and author of a document was listed at the end of the document, not at
the beginning.

>
>  it is very unlikely that a later writer would have
>> emulated that style; for example it was not copied in Kings and
>> Chronicles,
>> both written after the Exile.
>>
>
> Again, while you may have a point with Chronicles you are furnishing
> further questions for debate rather than providing 'evidence' that everybody
> accepts. There are many that have their reasons to assert that most of Kings
> was written before the exile. But in any case, I've lost your flow of logic
> here. What wasn't copied into Kings? A patriarchal narrative? Or just the
> place name? You've lost me.
>
What was not copied was the literary formulae found in Genesis, even where
the context indicates that they could have been used.

>
>  A third evidence is the archeological record
>> from the mid to late bronze ages, which closely parallel the record given
>> in
>> Exodus, Joshua and Judges, indicating an Exodus during the 13th dynasty
>> centuries after Abraham.
>>
>
> Agreed, but not sure what bearing this has on Jim's theory. Could you be a
> bit more explicit?
>
As I understand Jim’s theory, he has Abraham being a contemporary or at most
a century preceding Thutmosis III in dating.

>
>  All of these and more indicating a non-random
>> pattern saying that your theories are wrong, that Abraham lived about a
>> millennium before Thutmosis III and a lot can happen in a millennium, even
>> to place names.
>>
>>
> Ok. I think I've got you now. You're saying that the evidence from the TIII
> list is inadmissable in court because he lived so much longer after
> Abraham's time. But I don't think Jim was implying that TIII was one of
> Abraham's contemporaries was he? He was just proposing lines of evidence for
> a place name.
>
> Many place names, not just one.


> Seeing as your theories are such a long shot and contradict other evidence,
>> why should we accept them?
>>
>> Karl W. Randolph.
>>
>