...
That the BOG was written a thousand years before the Septuagint is a huge assumption--based on what? ...
... To recap--I said earlier that I found it strange that the name of the pharaoh Joseph served was forgotten--but that the names of a captain of his guard and the priest of On (Heliopolis) were not. ...
... But the reason for the scholars of the Septuagint assuming "Petepres" is that this was a name still current and had been for the last couple of hundred years. But not before that.
... But, okay, I can suggest something. Just in case the names of the two men *are* different, the first can be accounted for. Because it is written "Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh", perhaps it means exactly that--in Egyptian. "an officer of Pharaoh" can possibly be "P3-wdw-pr-a3" (the officer of pharaoh) and could very well have been vocalized "Potiphar". But nothing like that can account for the name of the priest of On. ...
... So we are stuck with that one, I'm afraid. As for the "records of the Hyksos"--no name there, had there been such a record, would have begun with the masculine article "p3", which is the beginning of all those names like "Petepres" (as rendered in Greek). The reason is this article was never used at this time in writing. The article was "pn", then. Few texts survive from the Hyksos time but there is one very interesting one called the Papyrus Rhind. It is a document from the Delta and actually tells of the onslaught of the Egyptians on the Hyksos strongholds. In it, a certain Theban prince, probably Ahmose, is called "pn rsy" or "the one of the south". See? Now the article "p3" is derived from this "pn" and reflects how it came to be pronounced at some point (because Egyptian /n/ was always a weak phoneme). ...
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.