Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.


Not at all. We don’t know what was the Biblical pronunciation, as no vowels
were preserved. The modern pronunciation follows our present understanding
of the Masoretic points, which your transliteration follows. What I say is
that the Biblical Hebrew speaker very likely had a significantly different
pronunciation, and so would have transliterated the word differently than
you did.

Further, you beg the question of whether or not the pronunciation of
Egyptian may have changed from the time of Abraham when Zoan was
transliterated to after Solomon 900 years later, which would have affected
the transliteration.

>
> 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.


NO! I deliberately started that paragraph with an “If…” so as not to box in
those who do not accept the claims of the Bible. Yet I put it out there as a
claim that needs to be considered in this context, whether or not one agrees
with it.


>  If it is not, then you would have no problem with Thutmose III
> claiming things that may be at odds with the Bible.


We have three possible options: either the Bible is correct, or Thutmsis III
is correct (or more accurately most modern historians are correct), or
neither is correct. One thing that is not possible is that both are correct.


>  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.
>

Yes I am more fundamentalist in my beliefs than his published opinions.

>
> > 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.
>

What I realized is that there are enough unknowns that we are unable to
pursue the issue in such a way as to be able to come to a definite
conclusion. Therefore, there is no real reason to pursue this line of
inquiry.

However, the real reason for the argument in the first place was not
necessarily the similarity of the name, but the historical understanding.
Then names were searched for to make a match.

>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>

Karl W. Randolph.