Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Karl, I think a bit of review is necessary.

You raised your stand in one of the posts that 'lh tldt is a reference
to an ancient
style.
Various evidence was raised against it, including evidence showing that 
already
in the Old Babylonian period, there was a use of names to begin letters.
You claimed these couldn't be from the 18th century BCE because these
Thutmose III is actually from the 10th century BCE.
It now seems the problem you have with Thutmose III being from the 16th 
century
BCE is that in your opinion, and using your interpretation of the
Bible, it conflicts
with Biblical claims.

What is missing here still is the evidence you have for Thutmose III being 
from
the 10th century BCE.  Where is your "cache of Egyptian names transliterated
into Hebrew around 1000 BC" that allows you to conclude that Thutmose III's
Golden Horus name would have been transcribed as $$q?  You don't like my
evidence, fine, but you still remain without any evidence to back up your
position that Thutmose III dates from the 10th century BCE, that the letters I
adduced with names at the beginning of the letter are not from the 18th 
century
BCE, and that 'lh tldt must consequently show us an example of an ancient
literary style of placing names at the end.  There is no evidence at all to 
back
up your position except the fact that you want it to be so, because then the
Biblical claims are not contradicted by Thutmose III's presence, and then the
Biblical claims appear validated by the use of the 'lh tldt formula.
That if you
ignore emphatics and drop the guttural portion from the end (the Ayin) it kind
of sounds like the same name.  You don't know Egyptian, and you don't have
any evidence that Hebrew speakers would have heard this name this way.
You're using an English transcription that doesn't tell you almost anything
about the realization of the consonants or the vowels of the Egyptian
pronunciation.  Where's YOUR evidence?

You don't "accept" the Aramaic evidence, that's your problem.  That's all that
much less evidence for you.  I could adduce all kinds of evidence.  Books
have been written on the subject.  This is not the place to give it all.  I 
just
gave simple examples.  Even in the Bible itself, there are names which are
clearly Egyptian such as p$xr, xrnpr, and py-bst.  These allow us to see how
the Hebrew speakers heard the various sibilants.  The point is the standard
academic position on the pronunciation of these names is backed up by a
whole lot of evidence that you just ignore, because you don't know about it.
I may not know that much more Egyptian than you do, but at least I know
that there is all that much evidence and I know to look for it.

Karl, you can hold any position you want.  You can think that Hebrew was
a consonant-vowel language, that the toladot formula theory you hold is
something different from Wiseman's, that Thutmose III lived in the time of
Solomon, and anything you want.  But if you want to convince anybody,
and if you want these things that you believe to be acceptable to anybody
on this list when you argue with them, you have to provide evidence.  Not
stand back, and just reject evidence that is brought to you.  You don't accept
the evidence, that's your choice.  But what evidence do you have at all?

Also, your representation of my position regarding the Masoretic vocalization
was not just a slightly different phrasing, it was totally off, and I
don't appreciate
being misquoted.  If you cannot take the time to understand what my position
really is, then don't say things like "I find this interesting, in
that in other
discussions you have insisted..." I try to understand your position, and you
are very disturbed when I misrepresent it, so please don't try to misrepresent
mine and please take the time to understand my position.

Karl, give us the evidence.

Yitzhak Sapir