Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Karl,

The issue with the emphatics and gutturals does not just center upon Zoan.  We
have the same letter in various Egyptian loan words (such as Hebrew cy 
'ship').
We have examples from other emphatics to show us they were preserved.  There
is even evidence that in certain cases the emphatic nature survived down into
Coptic.  Egyptian words are used in other Semitic texts (such as the 
Elephantine
papyri).  Egyptian words are transcribed in other Semitic languages (such as
Akkadian), and we can see how related Semitic languages transcribed these
words.  The evidence all shows a consistent use of emphatics in Semitic for
emphatics in Egyptian.  We even have examples from late Pharaonic names
such as Tirhaqa and Necho to show us that the k/q opposition between
emphatic q and non-emphatic k in Egyptian was perceived this way in Hebrew.
The last point, of course, has direct relevance on the individual whose name 
is
transcribed $W$Q in the Bible.

None of this matters if you think that Thutmose III is Shoshenq and
yet Thutmose III
was not called Djeser-ka-re, or anything similar, but rather Menkheperre.  So
really, while you have put me on the spot, and I was able to identify
for you the
basic reasoning that allows me to make or reject various identifications 
between
Hebrew/Egyptian identifications of Pharaohs, you have provided none in this 
way
to support your contention that (1) Thutmose III was called "Shisherke", and 
(2)
that this name of Thutmose III "Shisherke" would have been transcribed in the
Bible as $W$Q.  If there was never any Egyptian name "Shisherke" (because the
correct Egyptian form of the name includes the Egyptian god Re's name at the
end of the name) this makes it all that much harder to accept your theory.

It is relatively common today for people to say things like, "When I lived,
back in the days of the dinosaurs, ...."  Other variations may use other 
ancient
historical periods, or even quote inexplicably large numbers of years in such
situation.  This doesn't mean they mean it literally.  It may just be a sort 
of
literary device.  So Kitchen in reading the 480 years the way he does may
simply be having differences of interpretation than you do.  You might claim
that reading the Bible more literally means you take a more fundamentalist
position.  But there is no reason to accept that these numbers were meant
to be taken literally.  Kitchen's view of these numbers may derive not from 
his
less fundamentalist position but from his understanding and experience in
Egyptology.  He simply knows all that much more about Egyptology that he
had to reject certain alternatives for interpretation of Biblical numbers.  
But
this doesn't mean he doesn't believe the Bible is literally true any less than
you might.  He just thinks that certain numbers mentioned in the Bible are
a figure of speech, and should be interpreted as such.  So, take it back to
the discussion previously, it is possible that both the standard academic
view of Egyptian history is correct, and that the Bible is correct, but your
interpretive choice to read all large numbers literally rather than as figures
of speech or literary devices is wrong.

Now to take the historical vs. linguistic discussion back to its purpose,
according to what you've said, You started by sayin that there was a
literary device that people would write their names at the end of the book
and the discussion reached a point where you argued that this is a
different device than a colophon and that this separate non-colophon
device was in use until no later than 1500 BCE.  Accordingly, the
book of Genesis quotes ancient historical documents that testify to
their antiquity.  But what you are really saying is that there are all
kinds of alternative  if you accept all kinds of alternative theories for
historical rearrangement of events in Babylonian and Egyptian history,
and which allow you to maintain the accuracy of the Bible according
to your own interpretive standards.  If you accept these theories, you
can conclude that the literary device was in force prior to 1500 BCE,
and therefore the book of Genesis quotes document that testify to
their antiquity.  In other words:
1) If you accept a historical rearrangement that maintains the accuracy
and antiquity of the Bible
2) Then you conclude the book of Genesis quotes documents that
from their signature testify to their antiquity

This is circular argumentation.  Naturally, those who accept the
alternative theories for historical rearrangement that maintain (in
their opinion) the antiquity and accuracy of the Bible would accept
that the book of Genesis is an ancient and accurate source to begin
with.  Perhaps you could say that if you already believe that the
Torah dates from the time of Moses and that Moses lived during
a certain time period, (and you also accept certain historical
rearrangements), then the book of Genesis quotes older documents.
But there is no evidence in terms of absolute dating of a purported
(hypothetical) non-colophon literary device to show that the book
of Genesis quotes documents from the time of the Patriarchs,
unless you already accept (among various assumptions) that
the book of Genesis is to be dated to no later than the time of
Moses.

Yitzhak Sapir