horse original word, plural or singular?

[heraldys]

Hello everybody,
In this page you will see something quite puzzling for me: http://biblehub.com/lexicon/deuteronomy/17-16.htm
Concerning this verse, Deut 17:16, רַק֮ לֹא־יַרְבֶּה־לּ֣וֹ סוּסִים֒ וְלֹֽא־יָשִׁ֤יב אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה לְמַ֖עַן הַרְבּ֣וֹת ס֑וּס וַֽיהוָה֙ אָמַ֣ר לָכֶ֔ם לֹ֣א תֹסִפ֗וּן לָשׁ֛וּב (Westminster Leningrad Codex).
Without taking in account, in that web page I link above, of the non-respect by the NASB version, which does use the plural of the word 'horse' all the way long, how is it that in Hebrew, we find the plural word סוּסִים֒, which the lexicon definition render 'a horse', and then at the end of the verse, we find the singular ס֑וּס obviously rendered it by 'a horse'?. How it can be that it is translated such a way?
Now, for me, in Ex 15:19, Pharaoh is drowned in the sea with his soldiers, for we find a singular use of the word: כִּ֣י בָא֩ ס֨וּס פַּרְעֹ֜ה בְּרִכְבּ֤וֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו֙ בַּיָּ֔ם וַיָּ֧שֶׁב יְהוָ֛ה עֲלֵהֶ֖ם אֶת־מֵ֣י הַיָּ֑ם וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֥וֹךְ ; And I can see in Bible Gateway that not all of the versions render this singular as it is, so that many people think that Pharaoh was not drown. Would be there a real problem for the transliteration from the Hebrew?
Thank you much for resolving this problem!
FP

[kwrandolph]

Hello everybody,

… How it can be that it is translated such a way?

Languages are funny, such that translations sometimes have to be rather different from the original in order to get the same idea.

Further, sometimes words are used in phrases in ways that defy standard grammars. For example in English, a farmer can claim that he has 50 head of cattle. So the word “horse” in Biblical Hebrew could be used in a similar fashion.

Now, for me, in Ex 15:19, Pharaoh is drowned in the sea with his soldiers, for we find a singular use of the word: כִּ֣י בָא֩ ס֨וּס פַּרְעֹ֜ה בְּרִכְבּ֤וֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו֙ בַּיָּ֔ם וַיָּ֧שֶׁב יְהוָ֛ה עֲלֵהֶ֖ם אֶת־מֵ֣י הַיָּ֑ם וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֥וֹךְ ; And I can see in Bible Gateway that not all of the versions render this singular as it is, so that many people think that Pharaoh was not drown.

Some people teach that the Exodus, if it occurred, happened during the reign of Raamses II the Great. Raamses died of old age and his mummy is now in a museum. Therefore, if the Exodus occurred during his reign, the pharaoh didn’t die with his soldiers.

However, others say that Egyptian history is a royal mess, with dating derived therefrom totally untrustworthy. They then point to a large population of “Asiatic” (Hebrew) slaves then in Egypt during the 12th and early 13th dynasties. Then there was a pharaoh during the 13th dynasty whose mummy was never laid in a tomb, who was succeeded by his brother even though he had had a son. Shortly thereafter, Egypt was invaded and conquered “without a battle”. The powerful Egyptian army was no more. This was the start of a 400 year occupation. That’s the same history, but from the Egyptian side, of the Exodus.

In short, do we trust an Egyptian mythmaker (Manetho) or the Bible to give accurate history?

Karl W. Randolph.

[heraldys]

Thanks for your answer, kwrandolph.
That the Bible is accurate, no doubt. Yes, I heard of this 13th dynasty pharaoh. If he was the pharaoh of the Exodus, his first-born son, according to the 10th plague, would have died, and his first-born son died, as written. Do the records say something about this 13th dynasty son? Now afterwards Egypt was invaded and conquered "without a battle"; it would make sense, when we know what happened to the Egyptian army in the Red Sea... Some story of the 18th dynasty's pharaoh Amenophis III is interesting, too, concerning the Exodus, but the periods are quite distant: if the 13th dynasty dates of -1803 til -1649 BC, i.e. for 154 years, the 18th began 150 years later, from -1550 to -1292, i.e. 260 years. A biblical chronology dates the Exodus 480 years before Solomon built the 1st temple, which give us the date of 1446 BCE, that is Thutmose III period, if Egyptian chronology is correct. Now I wonder for the drowning of the horse of Pharaoh. Looking at the occurrences of this word in the biblical records, I read the Hebrew and singular use in certain verses: concerning the use of singular meaning a plural, in certain case, I will agree with you; for example, when Myriam sings: (Exodus 15:21)
"And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea."
It is evident that she used a poetic sentence, and she meant horses and riders. But,
(Exodus 15:19)
"For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea...". Here the singular word ס֥וּס in Hebrew. If it wasn't Pharaoh's own horse, and then, Pharaoh himself, why the need to remind that Pharaoh's chariots were harnessed to Pharaoh's horses? or that Pharaoh's horsemen rode Pharaoh's horses? It would not make much sense!

[kwrandolph]

Thanks for your answer, kwrandolph.
That the Bible is accurate, no doubt. Yes, I heard of this 13th dynasty pharaoh. If he was the pharaoh of the Exodus, his first-born son, according to the 10th plague, would have died, and his first-born son died, as written. Do the records say something about this 13th dynasty son?

From what I’ve read is that other than his birth, he disappears from history. That is consistent with the tenth plague, that he never grew up and did anything.

Now afterwards Egypt was invaded and conquered "without a battle"; it would make sense, when we know what happened to the Egyptian army in the Red Sea... Some story of the 18th dynasty's pharaoh Amenophis III is interesting, too, concerning the Exodus, but the periods are quite distant: if the 13th dynasty dates of -1803 til -1649 BC, i.e. for 154 years, the 18th began 150 years later, from -1550 to -1292, i.e. 260 years.

Was the 18th dynasty 150, or 350, years later?

A biblical chronology dates the Exodus 480 years before Solomon built the 1st temple, which give us the date of 1446 BCE, that is Thutmose III period, if Egyptian chronology is correct.

But is Egyptian chronology correct? In Egypt, among the treasures that Thutmose III captured and brought back to Egypt, as recorded in his temple, are some of the treasures amassed by Solomon, mentioned in Tanakh. That would put Thutmose III as living at 930 BC, not 1450 BC.

Now I wonder for the drowning of the horse of Pharaoh. Looking at the occurrences of this word in the biblical records, I read the Hebrew and singular use in certain verses: concerning the use of singular meaning a plural, in certain case, I will agree with you; for example, when Myriam sings: (Exodus 15:21)
"And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea."
It is evident that she used a poetic sentence, and she meant horses and riders. But,
(Exodus 15:19)
"For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea...". Here the singular word ס֥וּס in Hebrew. If it wasn't Pharaoh's own horse, and then, Pharaoh himself, why the need to remind that Pharaoh's chariots were harnessed to Pharaoh's horses? or that Pharaoh's horsemen rode Pharaoh's horses? It would not make much sense!

Like I wrote in my last message, I think that here we are dealing with an idiomatic phrase. Idiomatic phrases sometimes make no sense from a strictly grammatical analysis, but are readily recognized and understood within their audience. I suspect that “horse and rider” was such an idiomatic phrase. If not, I agree with you, that it doesn’t make sense.

Karl W. Randolph.

[heraldys]

Was the 18th dynasty 150, or 350, years later?

I rectify: From the end of the 13th dynasty, in 1649 BC, through the beginning of the 18th, 1550 BC, there was almost 100 years (not 154).

But is Egyptian chronology correct? In Egypt, among the treasures that Thutmose III captured and brought back to Egypt, as recorded in his temple, are some of the treasures amassed by Solomon, mentioned in Tanakh. That would put Thutmose III as living at 930 BC, not 1450 BC.

There is 520 years between these two dates, there is a big difference, indeed! It is evident that Solomon's treasures captured and brought back to Egypt by Thutmose III would not have happened in time of Moses.
Now, this 13th dynasty pharaoh whose mummy was never laid in a tomb, and Egypt conquered "without a battle", it is indeed quite interesting, especially if there was a large population of “Asiatic” slaves, i.e. Hebrews as you say, during the 12th and early 13th dynasties. It makes sense. I think I've got a good info here. Thanks for that. (Who was this pharaoh?)
Now, concerning the idiomatic phrases, as to suggest that Pharaoh was killed or not,if the Bible says that he was overthrown as the other Egyptians in the Red Sea, my opinion is that he had gone himself straight away into the dry way in the midst of the waters, as a very proud king. Did he not provoke the God of Moses, all along, despite the plagues? "But [God] overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red sea ..." Psalm 136:15