by
Damien F. Mackey
Occasionally
one encounters someone who will insist that
Moses wrote every single word of the entire Pentateuch.
A self-confessed “amateur” writes:
Mr Mackey,
I’ve been studying egyptology for many years now and also the theories of dr. Velikovsky.
I’ve been studying egyptology for many years now and also the theories of dr. Velikovsky.
Without a doubt he
was on the right track but as you probably have discovered very difficult to
convince the hardcore believers of the conventional chronology.
Mackey’s
comment: Along these lines, see my three-part series regarding entrenched
academia:
Robert K. G.
Temple's Trenchant Criticisms of "the Academic World"
commencing with Part One:
Now, according
to Part Two:
there has been
a “failure of nerve”. Truth demands sacrifice:
A Kingdom of Truth not Power
It is so much easier to fall in with the received
scholarly opinion.
One of the errors
both sides make is in the use of the title “pharao”. Forgive me my impudence
but you yourself make this error too.
For some reason or other we seem to assume that the Scriptures have not been edited in any form whatsoever.
For some reason or other we seem to assume that the Scriptures have not been edited in any form whatsoever.
Mackey’s
comment: The term “Pharaoh” actually comes from the Greeks.
Regarding
scriptural editing, I, in my series:
Tracing the
Hand of Moses in Genesis
commencing with Part One:
have argued
for significant editorial activity of the Pentateuch, commencing with Moses’
work on the original Genesis documents, or sources. I commenced that article by
writing: “Three
lines of evidence will be presented here in support of the traditional view
that Moses was substantially the editor, or compiler (though not actual
author), of the Book of Genesis”.
I would allow for further editorial
intervention by the likes of Samuel, Solomon, and Ezra.
You are not being ‘impudent’, just honestly stating
your opinion. I appreciate that.
Editing can cause confusion, as in the famous
case of the appearance of “Ramses” in Exodus 1:11. That has led many to presume
- quite wrongly, I believe - that Ramses II was contemporaneous with the Oppression
of Israel – a huge anachronism!
However, most of
the books of the Old Testament have only been assembled during the babylonean
exile and the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek during the
Ptolemaic period.
Mackey’s
comment: I do not accept the conventional late dating of either the Old, or
New, Testaments. Regarding Genesis, see e.g. my article:
If Genesis Borrowed from Babylonian
Epic, why an Egyptian ‘loan word’ for Noah’s Ark?
Scholars
tend to overlook completely the pervasive Egyptian
element.
As professor
A. S. Yahuda, expert in both Hebrew and Egyptian (not to mention Akkadian),
wrote:
Whereas
those books of Sacred Scripture which were admittedly written during and after
the Babylonian Exile reveal in language and style such an unmistakable
Babylonian influence that these newly-entered foreign elements leap to the eye,
by contrast in the first part of the Book of Genesis, which describes the
earlier Babylonian [sic] period, the Babylonian influence in the language is so
minute as to be almost non-existent.
Similarly, regarding the
New Testament Gospels, and other texts, Dead Sea Scrolls expert, Fr. Jean
Carmignac (Birth of the Synoptic Gospels), had been able to apply the
same sort of bilingual expertise - in his case, Greek and Hebrew - to gainsay
the received scholarly opinion and show that the New Testament writings in
Greek had Hebrew originals: his argument for a much earlier dating than is usual
for the New Testament books.
Fr Jean
Carmignac dates Gospels early
So if we assume
Solomon to have lived in 900BC, the first editing would occur in 500BC, the
babylonean episode and the Septuagint around 300BC or so. This means a period
of about 600 years in which is ‘assumed’ that no editing or change from the
original text occured.
To be honest, that’s preposterous and contrary to any human behaviour however rigid their belief is.
To be honest, that’s preposterous and contrary to any human behaviour however rigid their belief is.
Mackey’s comment: Occasionally one encounters
someone who will insist that Moses wrote every
single word of the entire Pentateuch. Now that is “rigid
… belief”.
Language is a fluid
human endeavour and changes from generation to generation. Old words become
archaic and new ones in vogue.
A beautiful example is the word ‘sharpshooter’. The correct term would be ‘sniper’. During the american civil war a union regiment of snipers used a breech loading and very accurate rifle made by Christian Sharps.
A beautiful example is the word ‘sharpshooter’. The correct term would be ‘sniper’. During the american civil war a union regiment of snipers used a breech loading and very accurate rifle made by Christian Sharps.
They were known as
Sharps shooters. Very few today know this and assume it has to do something
with a sharp eye.
There’s not such
thing as a ‘sharp’ eye.
And that’s only after a century and a half...
And that’s only after a century and a half...
Mackey’s
comment: I love reading about the American Civil War, the names and the
characters – but not the blood and the guts. I do know something about “Sharps”
– namely, that (the Battle of) Antietam (1862) was also called Sharpsburg.
So what’s my point:
Mackey’s
comment: I thought that you had already made it.
The title “pharao” in any of the books of Kings or Exodus is anachronistic. In hieroglyps, it only appears in the late 18th dynasty and never as a stand alone title. We have to wait until the 21st dynasty for it to appear as a title in itself. This means that Hatshepsut never was called Pharao! Nor Shishak, Zera or So for that matter. They were “Nesu Bity” and Lord of the 2 lands. Simply translated they were kings.
The first ‘Pharao’ is Siamun of the 21st dynasty who came after Ramses III. In Velikovsky’s chronology that’s fairly late.
This alone proofs
the anachronistic and late editing of the Scriptures. Since the time of the
Ptolemaic era, King of Egypt and Pharao are synonyms, and the latter simply
unknown in the days of Solomon!
In another example a scolar tries to refute Velikovsky by analysing Hebrew so to make a difference between king x and king of x. His analysis of the Hebrew title is probably correct but he does not take the late Hebrew date of editing in account.
Written in the same timeframe (500 to 300 bc) and Hatshepsut/Sheba a contemporary of Solomon (900bc), nobody knew who Hatshepsut/Sheba was anymore. The Egyptians themselves made sure we would forget. Tuthmose III had everything destroyed or covered that mentioned Hatshepsut. He even had her temple completely covered with rubble. So 4 to 6 centuries later when Jewish scolars were assembling their books nobody knew who or what they were writing about. So a change from king x to king of x was easily made.
In any case, just an opinion from an amateur so don’t mind me.
Thank you for your work.
In another example a scolar tries to refute Velikovsky by analysing Hebrew so to make a difference between king x and king of x. His analysis of the Hebrew title is probably correct but he does not take the late Hebrew date of editing in account.
Written in the same timeframe (500 to 300 bc) and Hatshepsut/Sheba a contemporary of Solomon (900bc), nobody knew who Hatshepsut/Sheba was anymore. The Egyptians themselves made sure we would forget. Tuthmose III had everything destroyed or covered that mentioned Hatshepsut. He even had her temple completely covered with rubble. So 4 to 6 centuries later when Jewish scolars were assembling their books nobody knew who or what they were writing about. So a change from king x to king of x was easily made.
In any case, just an opinion from an amateur so don’t mind me.
Thank you for your work.
….
No comments:
Post a Comment