Question on the name Samuel from 1 Sam 1:20

[Jason Hare]

That the Hebrew alphabet has been in use since the 15th century BC if not before is evidence.

The Canaanite peoples (of whom the Hebrews were one) adopted the alphabet from the Phoenicians. The earliest pre-Hebrew type inscriptions found are from the tenth or eleventh century BCE in Khirbet Qeiyafa. We're talking about speculation, and saying "15th century BC" is itself speculation.

[kwrandolph]

That the Hebrew alphabet has been in use since the 15th century BC if not before is evidence.

The Canaanite peoples (of whom the Hebrews were one) adopted the alphabet from the Phoenicians. The earliest pre-Hebrew type inscriptions found are from the tenth or eleventh century BCE in Khirbet Qeiyafa. We're talking about speculation, and saying "15th century BC" is itself speculation.

You have absolutely no evidence for any of this claim. All you have is speculation based on speculation based on presuppositions. And don’t think I’m unfamiliar with your speculations, I just reject them.

There are internal evidences that Torah was written by Moses in the 15th century BC. He wrote it on leather or papyrus scrolls where the originals no longer survive.

I reject your presuppositions, the basis of your argument above. Once the foundation is gone, the speculations built on that foundation tumble into nothingness.

If anything, the Phoenicians learned the alphabet from the Hebrews around 1000 BC.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

A name of a ruler is not an evidence because it's more likely that the greeks knew his name without the hebrew language.

No, I don’t think the Greeks got the transliteration directly from Hebrew, rather that they got it directly from Persian. But it is significant that both Greek and Hebrew transliterated the Persian “X” phoneme, the Greeks with Ξ and the Hebrews with ס, both representing the same phoneme.

Meanwhile Aramaic speakers where the language had lost the “X” phoneme, transliterated the Persian “X” with an “S”.

You don't mention that the greeks attached the vowel o to the consonant ע or in another words the greeks use the alphabet in a way that maximizes their language and not for the use of translation from hebrew.

Yes, I know, but I didn’t mention it because I didn’t think it germane to the discussion.

I urge you to consider consonants limitations as a clue if the ס pronounced like ks.

No, I don’t think that’s a limitation.

You can compare with arabic in the words: סתר, סבב that indicates s.

Arabic is not Hebrew. It’s a cognate language. Cognate languages sometimes act in parallel, sometimes differ in surprising ways. Therefore cognate languages cannot be used as proof.

Karl W. Randolphl.

[Jason Hare]

That the Hebrew alphabet has been in use since the 15th century BC if not before is evidence.

The Canaanite peoples (of whom the Hebrews were one) adopted the alphabet from the Phoenicians. The earliest pre-Hebrew type inscriptions found are from the tenth or eleventh century BCE in Khirbet Qeiyafa. We're talking about speculation, and saying "15th century BC" is itself speculation.

You have absolutely no evidence for any of this claim. All you have is speculation based on speculation based on presuppositions. And don’t think I’m unfamiliar with your speculations, I just reject them.

There are internal evidences that Torah was written by Moses in the 15th century BC. He wrote it on leather or papyrus scrolls where the originals no longer survive.

I reject your presuppositions, the basis of your argument above. Once the foundation is gone, the speculations built on that foundation tumble into nothingness.

If anything, the Phoenicians learned the alphabet from the Hebrews around 1000 BC.

Karl W. Randolph.

Oh, yes. The force of faith claims upon observations has always been asserted loudly without being proven. If you just assume all the answers by faith, then no further work is required. Good on ya.

[Refael Shalev]

But Xerxes has two "x" in hebrew none.
Artaxerxes has "חש" and "ס" parallel to "x" , you avoid the hard questions.

The fact that the greeks use "ט" like "th" and "ע"as "o" is very important to the discussion because it demonstrates how the greeks (!) exploited the hebrew alphabet for their needs and not necessarily a proof for the pronunciation of "ס" in hebrew.

[kwrandolph]

You have absolutely no evidence for any of this claim. All you have is speculation based on speculation based on presuppositions. And don’t think I’m unfamiliar with your speculations, I just reject them.

There are internal evidences that Torah was written by Moses in the 15th century BC. He wrote it on leather or papyrus scrolls where the originals no longer survive.

Oh, yes. The force of faith claims upon observations has always been asserted loudly without being proven. If you just assume all the answers by faith, then no further work is required. Good on ya.

No, it’s a matter of which version of history one trusts—one a reconstruction based on 19th century German rationalism, belief in evolution connected with anti-Semitism on the one hand, on the other hand trusting ancient records when they consistently record that the Exodus took place in what we now recognize as the 15th century BC and that Moses was the writer of the Torah? Well?

Further those on the one hand take as Gospel truth the writings of a known faker of history—Manetho—who in the second century BC deliberately distorted history to try to show Egyptian superiority (despite then being ruled by Greeks) verses those on the other hand claimed either to have gone through the events themselves, were eyewitnesses, were interviewed and the interviewer wrote down what the eyewitnesses said or condensations of contemporary records that had been written?

There’s no evidence other than a leap of faith for the one hand, and on the other hand the writings of those who claimed to be familiar with the subject matter of what they wrote. So which version of history do you trust?

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

But Xerxes has two "x" in hebrew none.

Is that transliteration Hebrew, or Aramaic, another indication that Jews of that time spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew as their mother tongue?

It is noticeable that the writer of the book of Esther didn’t know Hebrew as well as, for example, Ezra and Nehemiah. And in Ezra we see the evidence that what was ס in Hebrew, was ש in Aramaic.

Artaxerxes has "חש" and "ס" parallel to "x" , you avoid the hard questions.

That is merely evidence that what the Hebrews heard as חש, the Greeks heard as Ξ. The sounds are similar enough that such a mistake on the part of the Greeks is understandable.

The fact that the greeks use "ט" like "th" and "ע"as "o" is very important to the discussion because it demonstrates how the greeks (!) exploited the hebrew alphabet for their needs and not necessarily a proof for the pronunciation of "ס" in hebrew.

From what I read concerning the history of written Greek, when they first took over the Hebrew alphabet, they wrote only in consonants. Only later they changed some of the letters to vowels, dropped three letters, added some letters to end up with what we now recognize from classical Greek. So yes, I consider that the Greeks preserved most of the original pronunciations of the Hebrew letters, including ס as Ξ and the ט as Θ, while letters representing phonemes that didn’t exist in Greek were either dropped or changed to vowels.

I didn’t want to get into an argument concerning Greek language, which is why I mentioned only the one letter at first.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

No, it’s a matter of which version of history one trusts—one a reconstruction based on 19th century German rationalism, belief in evolution connected with anti-Semitism on the one hand, on the other hand trusting ancient records when they consistently record that the Exodus took place in what we now recognize as the 15th century BC and that Moses was the writer of the Torah? Well?

The worth of a theory is proven by the evidence that it presents, not by the morality or poor opinions of the one who discovered the theory. If you say that there is Egyptian evidence of the Exodus, then you propose something that I've never seen stated outside of certain fundamentalist groups. I've not come across anything that confirms Hebrew slavery in Egypt from the Egyptian perspective. Granted, maybe there's something that all non-faith-based researchers have simply missed, and I've missed it for that reason, as well. I doubt it, though.

Further those on the one hand take as Gospel truth the writings of a known faker of history—Manetho—who in the second century BC deliberately distorted history to try to show Egyptian superiority (despite then being ruled by Greeks) verses those on the other hand claimed either to have gone through the events themselves, were eyewitnesses, were interviewed and the interviewer wrote down what the eyewitnesses said or condensations of contemporary records that had been written?

What eye witnesses are you talking about?

There’s no evidence other than a leap of faith for the one hand, and on the other hand the writings of those who claimed to be familiar with the subject matter of what they wrote. So which version of history do you trust?

You are simply assuming that there were eye witnesses. Might as well assume that all ancient writings were true, and every religion has great mystical powers. I'm sure you see the problem with that.

[kwrandolph]

No, it’s a matter of which version of history one trusts—one a reconstruction based on 19th century German rationalism, belief in evolution connected with anti-Semitism on the one hand, on the other hand trusting ancient records when they consistently record that the Exodus took place in what we now recognize as the 15th century BC and that Moses was the writer of the Torah? Well?

The worth of a theory is proven by the evidence that it presents, not by the morality or poor opinions of the one who discovered the theory.

You haven’t considered archaeology, have you?

If you say that there is Egyptian evidence of the Exodus, then you propose something that I've never seen stated outside of certain fundamentalist groups.

There is evidence from the 12th dynasty that there were large numbers of “Asiatic” slaves in Egypt. The Egyptians considered Hebrews as “Asiatics”. Then one of the pharaohs, whose name I have forgotten, who had a son but was succeeded by his brother, his mummy has never been found and shortly thereafter the Hyksos conquered Egypt “without a battle” (what happened to the mighty Egyptian army?). While that’s not direct evidence of the Exodus, it’s indirect evidence from the Egyptian side.

I've not come across anything that confirms Hebrew slavery in Egypt from the Egyptian perspective. Granted, maybe there's something that all non-faith-based researchers have simply missed, and I've missed it for that reason, as well. I doubt it, though.

Or are there deliberate distortions of history that blind researchers?

Further those on the one hand take as Gospel truth the writings of a known faker of history—Manetho—who in the second century BC deliberately distorted history to try to show Egyptian superiority (despite then being ruled by Greeks) verses those on the other hand claimed either to have gone through the events themselves, were eyewitnesses, were interviewed and the interviewer wrote down what the eyewitnesses said or condensations of contemporary records that had been written?

What eye witnesses are you talking about?

The official, royal records cited in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as still being extant at the time those books were written, were written by eyewitnesses, if not actual participants.

In the New Testament, Luke specifically mentions interviewing eyewitnesses.

There’s no evidence other than a leap of faith for the one hand, and on the other hand the writings of those who claimed to be familiar with the subject matter of what they wrote. So which version of history do you trust?

You are simply assuming that there were eye witnesses. Might as well assume that all ancient writings were true, and every religion has great mystical powers. I'm sure you see the problem with that.

Why make a straw-man argument? It doesn’t speak well of you.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Refael Shalev]

Thanks Karl.

I find it hard to believe. The sound "s" in hebrew has limitations with other sibiliants (זצ"ש) but not with velar/uvular (גכ"ק). It's quite a riddle how did anyone could manage doubled ס.