Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:
Starting with what can best be recognized and pointed to.

The Bible’s record of Israel’s contact with Egypt starts in the patriarchal
age, with Abraham visiting the country, with contact maintained up to the
Exodus.

After the Exodus to the times of the kings, there is no mention of any
contact with Egypt. Regular contact was not resumed until Solomon. Then
between the time of Solomon’s death and the Babylonian exile, three pharaohs
are named: שישק (the one time it is spelled as שושק can be taken as a
copyist error), סוא and נכה. (Actually, interestingly enough, סוא was listed
only as “king” and not as “pharaoh”, as if to limit “pharaoh” to native
Egyptians?) The question arises, who do these pharaohs names refer to among
the Egyptian pharaohs known from Egyptian records? Are these official names,
or unofficial names used by outside countries but not listed in official
records in Egypt?

The findings of archaeology seem to back up the history as posited in the
Bible, and not that according to the majority of modern historians.

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

> 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


Where did I give any indication that I thought they were the same?


> 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.
>

Egyptian BC history is a mess, Kitchen’s protestations to the contrary.
While those who challenge the majority opinion remain the minority, they
have sufficient information indicating that the majority reconstruction is
on shaky basis at best. But even then, certain broad outlines can be
discerned.

After the Exodus, Thutmosis III was the first of the pharaohs to invade
Canaan. The Bible lists that pharaoh as שישק. How the ancient Hebrews
got שישק from Thutmosis III’s name is conjecture, it could be a shortening
of the long name listed here
http://hieroglyphs.net/000501/html/000-042.html(how was that name
pronounced?). “Shisherke” is the conjecture that I read,
which could be wrong. The conjecture starts with history and archaeology,
then tries to make a linguistic connection, not the other way around. And my
questions concerning pronunciation remain unanswered by you.

>
> 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.
>

You are speculating as to how Kitchen can reject the dates in the Bible and
yet accept them (this is getting into the weird). Can you point to anywhere
else that 480 = 250?

>
> 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.
>

How do these last two paragraphs fit with the first part of your posting? I
don’t see the connection.

>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>

Why do you keep posting as if I were advocating for a certain view of the
Bible, when I consistently post in the optative, i.e. “If …”? Do you
actually read my posts, or just skim them then emote?

Karl W. Randolph.