Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

In most of the English speaking world, if one says, “the Queen” without a
name, most native English speaking people will understand that as a
reference to Queen Elizabeth, the presently reigning monarch. Or if a
mention is made of “In 1900, the Queen …” those who are educated up to the
standards of the past know the reference is to Queen Victoria. However, if
an English speaker wishes to refer to a monarch of Greece or of Spain,
especially if referencing a past monarch who is no longer alive, then in
order for the monarch to be properly identified, he would be identified not
only his title, but also his name and his country of origin.

The authorship of Kings is of the latter case, written long after the
events, therefore giving the names of the deceased so that the intended
audience may know who was indicated. The authors of Genesis and Exodus wrote
to an audience where merely a reference to “the Pharaoh” was sufficient
identification so that they knew who was meant.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 7:32 PM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Kitchen's argument appeals to administrative memoranda circulating within
> Egyptian court circles. This would hold a lot more water IF the book of
> Exodus were just such an administrative memorandum within the Egyptian court
> circles of the specific Pharaoh it mentions. Then one could understand why
> Pharaoh is not named. But does anyone honestly believe that to be the
> case-that a piece of literature written in Hebrew was written for specific
> circulation as an administrative memorandum within the Egyptian court? I
> don't think even Kitchen would argue that.
>
> And what do we then do with the Pharaohs in Genesis who also are not named?
>
> And what then do we do with the fact that Pharaohs are specifically named
> in the books of Kings?
>
> Kitchen's is a very very thin argument. It's almost beside the point.
>
> In any case, does it really matter if the author(s) of Genesis and Exodus
> didn't know the names of particular Pharaohs? I can't see how it does.
>
> Yes it does! That they did not record the names is besides the point, but
it is the difference between those who participated in the actions (Exodus)
or was closely associated with the actions (was it Joseph himself, or maybe
on of his sons, who wrote his story that was later incorporated in Genesis?)
so in each case was intimately familiar with the pharaoh’s identity, verses
legends that were written long after the events. Yes, this is a theological
question. And a centrally important one too.

That you do not recognize the importance shows your theological leanings.

>
> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au


Karl W. Randolph.