Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Also, it is perhaps the way the author calls Pharaoh just simple Pharaoh
that best lends credence to the author being resident in Egypt. Just like
people who speak to the Queen don't walk up to her and say "Hi Queen
Elizabeth II" they just call her "Your majesty" or "Your royal highness" in
the same way being a member of the royal court Moses would have been very
much accustomed to just call him "Pharaoh". I see no reason why he would
have called him anything different in the Torah.

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
>