Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:30 PM, K Randolph wrote:
> Yitzhak:
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Yitzhak Sapir 
> <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> But Mr. Sweeney does not know a lot about Egyptian phonology.
>> The letter transcribed as Dj was transcribed into Hebrew as Sade.
>> This is the case with the city name Zoan:
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=8Onqc1llLRoC&pg=PA39 (top)
>> The phrase Djeser-ka is transcribed as: D_SR-K3 as in the following:
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=gMxfheT1XQIC&pg=PA337
>> It would be transcribed into Hebrew, I guess, as: "c$r-k)" צסרכא
>> And with the Re, צסרכארע.
>>
>
> Your transliteration is according to modern Hebrew pronunciation. What was
> the pronunciation of 900 BC Hebrew? You and I have disagreed on this in the
> past, and did not come to a consensus, therefore must agree to disagree
> again. Similarly, what was the Egyptian pronunciation? In the 500 years
> between the transliteration of Zoan and following Solomon’s death, did the
> Egyptian pronunciation change enough to effect transliteration?

Karl, my transliteration is not according to modern Hebrew pronunciation.
It is according to the Biblical transcription conventions of Egyptian words 
and
consistent with Middle and Late Egyptian.  Your transliteration is actually
according to modern Hebrew pronunciation since it does not relate to the
gutturals (alef and ayin, although your transcription drops the Re with the
ayin because it does not conform to the equation you wish to describe), and
does not treat the emphatic Dj and Q appropriately.  I made a point to use
sources consistent with the language of Thutmose III's inscriptions.  In any
case, your claim here does not even treat the fact that Thutmose III was not
known as Djeser-ka-re, but as Menkheperre.  The one who posited this was
Thutmose III originally was Velikovsky, and he had no background in
historiography or egyptology so it makes sense he would twist and turn the
pronunciation of the name according to whatever theory he wanted to posit.
The question is why you decide to adopt his position?

> While we may disagree on the linguistic aspects, there are other facts that
> make a bronze age Thurmosis III unlikely:
>
> If the historical aspects of Torah, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and
> Chronicles are correct, then the zero mention of Egypt outside of mentioning
> the historical aspect of the Exodus from the time of the Exodus itself to
> after Saul, and geographical and sociological claims about Egypt, contradict
> the claims of Thutmosis III and his followers having been in the Judea,
> Samaria and the surrounding areas during that era.

Who ever said we must accept the claims of either the Bible and/or Thutmose
III?  If it is an a priori assumption of yours that "the historical
aspects of Torah,
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles are correct," then please put
it on the table.  If it is not, then you would have no problem with Thutmose 
III
claiming things that may be at odds with the Bible.  I point out though that
Kenneth Kitchen has no problem with Thutmose III and I doubt you're more
knowledgeable in Egyptology or more fundamentalist in your beliefs in the
Bible than he is.

> The main arguments for ששק = Thutmosis III are historical and
> archaeological, not linguistic, hence only of incidental interest to this
> list.

While I disagree with you on the relevance of such arguments to the list, I 
ask
you not to bring to the fore arguments that you are unwilling to follow up
because you decide they are of no relevance to the list.  Let us discuss the
issues on the basis of what you think is relevant to the list.

Yitzhak Sapir