Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Good point. Agreed. Moses didn't feel the need to name him. Why would he? He
wrote this for an audience he assumed knew which Pharaoh he was talking
about. After all, they were all there with him when it happened.

Anyway, it was the other point I was more interested in hearing you comment
about. Do you at least see Akhenaten as historically being an upper boundary
for the beginnings of the kingdom of Isreal? Can you see that the letters to
him show that Isreal did not yet exist? Can you see that Canaan is worried
about nomadic skirmishes to their towns? Can you see that they feel the King
should intervene but that the King seems unwilling?

James Christian

2010/2/12 George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>

> I'm not going to post any more on this, James, other than to respond to
> this statement:
>
> "...the very least we could say is that the historical Amenophis III is a
> strong candidate as the Pharaoh that the authors of the Torah were hoping to
> base their story on based on his son dying before he died..."
>
> I don't think there is any evidence that the authors of the Torah had any
> particular Pharaoh in mind for the Exodus narratives. If they did, they
> would have named him, just as Pharaohs are named in the book of Kings.
> Instead, the monarch of Egypt in the Exodus narratives is anonymous. He just
> goes by the title 'Pharaoh' or 'King of Egypt'. His actual personal identity
> is completely beside the point of the narrative. So I think it's an
> overstatement to attribute a motive to the authors of the Torah when there
> is no evidence in the text itself to suggest very much at all.
>
> Over to you for the final say if you wish to have it. I'm done.
>
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>