Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:
I have changed my mind on subjects discussed on this list, if and when a
good presentation indicates that there is something better available.

Secondly, before the last few years, my access to Biblical and Biblical
Hebrew sources was just in the paper books that I own. Then I got exposed to
several sources, some of which sounded believable at first, but proved less
than trustworthy upon further study.

In this case, I was working with a site that I consider in the same league
as conspiracy theorists—start with a few facts, then build a pile of fiction
around those facts. In this case, the trick is in separating the facts from
fiction. From the way it is written, it looked like that “Shisherke” for
Thutmosis III was one of the recognizable facts and I, not knowing Egyptian,
could neither verify nor falsify their claim. You almost had me convinced
that there was nothing there, until below.

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

I find this interesting, in that in other discussions you have insisted on
following even the Masoretic points as being Biblical Hebrew, where I
questioned them. I am far more loath on changing the consonantal text than
were the Masoretes, as where we find most Kethiv/Qere pairs, I prefer the
Kethiv.

>
> 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
>

There is no shame in retraction. But this brings back my earlier questions
concerning Egyptian pronunciation as it was heard by Hebrew ears. Whereas
‘dj’ in 13th dynasty and earlier Egyptian was heard as a tsada, did it
soften so that by the time of Thutmose III it was heard as a sin? Secondly,
I am on record as saying that it appears that Biblical Hebrew (as opposed to
Masorete Hebrew) was a consonant-vowel language, that every consonant was
followed by a vowel: in this name we see an Egyptian syllable closed by a
consonant, did the ancient Hebrews hear the double consonant (r-k) as an
emphatic? A final point in this series of questions, I think the evidence
points to the fact that sin and shin were one letter during Biblical times,
that only under the influence of native Aramaic speakers was the one letter
split into two, so that a softened ‘dj’ and ‘s’ would have been
transliterated by the same letter in Hebrew. All this paragraph leading to
is that the ancient Hebrew would have heard “sisakka”, written שישק, from a
quickly pronounced Djeser-khau? It is within the realm of possibility.

>
> 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.
>

See above.

> …
> 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.
>

Until your retraction above, your argument was so strong that I was willing
to retract, at least the linguistic aspects. Therefore I retreated to the
fact that the history came first, then the match was looked for. Your
retraction above brings back the linguistic aspects as a possibility.

>
> 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?
>
>

The answer should be obvious from your question, namely that the modern
reconstruction of Thutmose III history and the history as recorded in the
Bible both cannot be correct. Either the Exodus did not occur when the Bible
says it did (Kitchen) or Egyptian history is a mess. I opt for the latter.
And from what I read from archaeology, it appears that archaeology also
supports the latter.

The story of Exodus is that Egypt was hammered by one plague after another
so that by the time Israel crossed the Red Sea, Egypt was shattered and
impoverished, army and pharaoh (if he were at the head of his army as he
should have been) dead, so weak that an invader could have come in and taken
over without a battle.

The story of Thutmose III was following a few generations of an increasingly
rich and powerful country bursting at the seams as it went on conquests,
followed by at least a few generations of continued wealth and power. The
contrast could hardly be greater.

If the archaeological record is correct that at the end of the 13th dynasty,
a large population of Asiatics left Egypt so suddenly that they abandoned
not only tools but even some jewelry, followed by the invasion of the Hyksos
who took over without a battle, that would date the Exodus as being long
before Thutmose III. That would also indicate that the modern reconstruction
of Egyptian history is way off, if Biblical dates are correct.

Hence my conclusion that the modern reconstruction of Egyptian history is
wrong. At the very least, it is impossible that both the modern
reconstruction of Egyptian history and the Bible be correct.

>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>

Karl W. Randolph.