Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:17 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  1.  As previously noted, JPS1985 translates TLH as “impale” at Genesis 40: 
> 19.
>
>
You know what I think of translations, so why even bring them up?


>   Here is what Professor Robert Alter says about TLH/“impale” at p. 232 of 
> his translation of, and commentary on, Genesis:
>
>
>
> “‘impale’.  Despite that fact that the Hebrew verb generally means ‘to 
> hang’, hanging was not a common means of execution anywhere in the ancient 
> Near East, and there is evidence elsewhere that the same verb was used for 
> impalement, which was frequently practiced.  The baker’s dire fate would 
> seem to be first decapitation and then exposure of the body on a high 
> stake.”
>
>
In other words, his understanding is not drawn from Hebrew language and its
use, but from cognate languages. Even the pictures he uses are from much,
much later.

According to Lisowski’s concordance, the verb is used in 26 verses, so
from linguistic evidence within Hebrew, the idea that it means
“impale” is very weak, at best.

  It certainly would be quite remarkable for an Egyptian domestic
officer (the Baker) to be impaled.  Consider also that in ancient
Egypt:  “Criminals of high rank were saved the shame of public
execution by being permitted to kill themselves….”
http://www.love-egypt.com/government.html  That traditional Egyptian
mercy would not extend, however, to a would-be assassin of Pharaoh.
>
>
Where is your evidence for this claim? I think I can answer that from your
earlier writings — personal speculation, i.e. pulled out of thin air.


>
>
> For Pharaoh’s Chief Baker to be impaled,
>
>
This is what others on this list have criticized you for: you have started
with a premise that is not at all sure, then treat it as a fact for your
next argument — speculation upon speculation upon speculation, leading up to
unbelievable.


> 2.  To the best of my knowledge, there were only three assassination 
> attempts on a pharaoh in 3,000 years of ancient Egypt.
>
>
This is pure speculation that the chief baker was trying to assassinate
pharaoh.



>   So if that Pharaoh, for a short time, honored the first Hebrew for having 
> discerned a nefarious insider plot to assassinate Pharaoh, then we would 
> rightly expect to have a portrait of that first Hebrew.  And we do!
>
>
Duh! The first Hebrew was Abraham, not his great-grandson Joseph.

>
>
> Set forth below are two links to a portrait of a person who appears to be 
> the first Hebrew.
>
> Each and every aspect of the Semitic figure on that magnificent canehead 
> fits everything we know about the first Hebrews.
>
>
This is a big, big leap, many layers of speculation, collapsed contexts, and
so forth that puts this theory in the realm of science fiction.

>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
You still haven’t acknowledged that the Tell Amarna letters describe a
Canaan consistent with the archeological findings for 9th to 8th centuries
BC, not earlier. So are you now trying to say that Joseph was after King
David?

Karl W. Randolph.