Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM, K Randolph wrote:

>> 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.

Karl, a while ago you accused me of not reading your message carefully.
Have you read mine?  I mean, my transliteration is in fact inconsistent with
the Masoretic vocalization (the Masoretic points).  It does not follow it.  
The
Masoretic vocalization vocalizes the name as Shishaq.  I vocalize the
consonantal text in Kings ($W$Q) as something like Shu:shiq.  In contrast,
your proposal (Shisherke) follows the Masoretic vocalization in using an i in
the first syllable.    So what is it that I said that made you think
that I follow
here the Masoretic vocalization?

> 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.

Where is Zoan transliterated in the stories of Abraham?  We find Zoan in
Num 13:22, Is 19:11,13, 30:4, Ezek 30:14, and Ps 78:12, 43.  Now, wouldn't
you read this as a consistent transliteration of the name down into exilic
times, all with Sade for Egyptian Dj?  Your transcription simply ignores the
emphatic consonants and gutturals as if they spoke modern English or
Hebrew.  What is the grounds for your transliteration scheme?  Particularly,
if we don't know what Egyptian sounded like, how do we know that it even
resembled something close to Shisherke?

You've also so far refrained from dealing with the fact that Thutmose III was
simply not called Djeserkare, Shisherkare, or any other variant.  You're
assuming that is his name without having substantiated it.

>> > 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.

Karl, what you have done up there is begging the question.  You assume
that the "historical accounts" are true, so you discount and rearrange 
Egyptian
evidence, and lo and behold, you manage to twist Egyptian evidence around
so that the "historical accounts" are true.  It's not an issue of boxing 
others
in, it's an issue that the argument is completely flawed, and that you assume
a priori that the Bible must be true.  All I asked is if it is an assumption 
of
yours that the historical accounts must be true.

>>  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.

Well, given Kitchen's understanding in both Egyptology and the Bible, I
think it is definitely possible that both are correct.  Perhaps it is not
possible that both the Bible according to your historical interpretation
and the modern academic view of Thutmose III are consistent.  However,
it is possible that the Bible according to many other interpretations
(including those of believers that some may describe as fundamentalist
such as Kitchen) is still consistent with the modern academic view of
Thutmose III.  All that says is that perhaps your interpretation may be
wrong.

Yitzhak Sapir