Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Hello Karl,

It is not the issue that the Bible's spelling of $W$Q may be a copyist error.
Yes, it might.  The point is, that using this and various other evidence, I 
read
$u:$vq, rather than $i:$aq of the Masoretic.  So I do not follow the Masoretic
here.  I do not follow Modern Hebrew.  I follow ancient transliterations and
evidence, such as the hieroglyphic evidence of the Egyptian, Assyrian
transliterations, the Septuagint, and the Biblical text.

If there is any specific question regarding this correspondence, that is not
answered in the following, please feel free to ask it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANE-2/message/10494
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ANE-2/message/10498
http://books.google.com/books?id=D31UbzVkawwC&pg=PA1 (long footnote)

I would like to retract my comments about Thutmose III (not) being Djeserke.
It appears that his Golden Horus name was Djeser-khau:
http://www.archaeowiki.org/Thutmose_III

However, that's Khau, representing a Khet, Ayin, and Waw.  There's no
Qof, and Hebrew scribes would not have confused a foreign Khet for a
Hebrew Qof.  And the first letter is still an emphatic, transcribed in Hebrew
as a Sade.

Linguistics aside, Thutmose III does not aid us regarding the problems posed
by Shoshenq as Shishak.  Why do you think it is a better fit?  The main
problem for scholars in identifying Shoshenq I as Biblical $W$Q is that
$W$Q does not list Jerusalem or places in Judea in his topographical
list.  But neither does Thutmose III:
http://www.archaeowiki.org/Topographical_List,_First_Campaign_of_Thutmose_III

Rather, he mentions Qadesh that is interpreted as Jerusalem:
http://books.google.com/books?id=F74JXoief34C&pg=PA20

But Shoshenq might also be mentioning Qadesh in no. 54 on his list:
https://oa.doria.fi/handle/10024/4162?show=full p. 221 (230 in the pdf)
[The link is to a page about the book, the book itself is a 6 MB pdf link
on the bottom.]

You have said previously, "How can you censor new chronology
dating when there are linguistic clues that back it up? One good
example is that an alternate name for Thutmosis III is Shisherka,
almost a dead ringer for the Hebrew name of $$Q who sacked
Jerusalem after Solomon died. It is closer than Shishonk."  But
now you admit that "'Shisherke' is the conjecture that I read,
which could be wrong."  It is wrong, and the only way it can
be taken as a "dead ringer" is if we assume that ancient Hebrews
confused Shin and Samekh, or Qof and Khet, or dropped the
Ayin.  By the time we finish up with all the "almost sounds like"
phonetic correspondences, we find ourselves using pure modern
English pronunciation.  It's not a "dead ringer" at all.  In light of
the apparent linguistic difficulties, you seem to move from
dependence on linguistic correspondence between Thutmose III
and $W$Q and instead focus on the historical aspects.

Thus, you write, "After the Exodus, Thutmosis III was the first of
the pharaohs to invade Canaan."  Well, if your date for the Exodus
-- within decades of 1446 BCE as suggested here:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2009-January/036872.html
-- and if the standard dating for Thutmose III is correct, then
Thutmose III was the Pharaoh during or near the Exodus.  He
wouldn't have been the one to invade after the Exodus.  Only if you
rearrange Egyptian history do you get him to be at the appropriate
time to invade and be compared to Shishaq.  But why would you
want to do that to begin with?  What's so wrong with the standard
view of Egyptian history that sees Shoshenq as $W$Q that
is solved when we identify $W$Q with Thutmose III?

Yitzhak Sapir