Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

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


Here in relationship to Hebron, which was already in existence at the time
of Abraham.


> , 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?


Not necessarily. No more than we have a consistent transliteration of
Deutschland into English. For some reason, that land became known in English
by its Latin name, and it stuck. Similarly the capital of China was known in
English as Peking up to mere decades ago, even though the Mandarin
pronunciation has been Beijing since way back. So the same dynamic could be
in force for the name of Zoan—no one can rule it out.


>  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?
>

I already answered this in my last posting.

>
> 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.


No. I used an if-statement in the same manner as is done in computer
programming, namely “if the Bible is true, then the modern reconstruction of
Thutmosis III reign cannot be true.” But if the Bible is not true, then
option B comes into play, namely that the modern reconstruction of Thutmosis
III reign is possibly correct.

You need to look at the text of Tanakh according to linguistic principles,
not according to your à priori religious beliefs. Then, and only then,
should you apply your beliefs to say whether or not you agree with the text
as written.


>  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.


Nope. The Bible clearly states that Solomon started building the temple 480
years after the Exodus. 1 Kings 6:1. Kitchen puts that span at about 250
years, give or take a few decades. There is no way to reconcile the two
numbers, there’s not even an LXX variant reading even close to it. Kitchen
has come down on the side that the Bible is not true, therefore his position
is that option B mentioned above comes into play.


>  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.
>

Simply take the words written in Tanakh according to linguistic, grammatical
and lexicographical standards, and a particular message is communicated.
Whether you trust the message imparted by those words or not is irrelevant
to the linguistic analysis.

>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>

Karl W. Randolph.