Literatuur

• - - , ANE: DISCUSSION LIST FOR THE STUDY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST, Journal, [0], 26 Sep 2005, - Banyai Michael: Take the mention of $w$q together with that concerning the other "Egyptian" king mentioned next modelled on the name of Osorkon I, Zerah the Ethiopian. There is clearly no real connection of Osorkon to Juda. Not even Kitchen does attempt to synchronise Zerah with Osorchon, even if the name is as clearly as previously the one of Shoshenk I the one of Osorkon. Both names $w$q and the other one might have been picked later on from some ancient source like Manetho to add names to the originally biblical story of some nameless Egyptian Pharaoh inflicted a defeat.

  - Bob Porter: Kitchen says that Zerah can not be equated with Osorkon because "Hebrew z is not equivalent to Egyptian s, nor is Hebrew h [with dot underneath] equivalent to Egytpian k" (Third Int. Period in Egypt, 1972 [and later editions] p.309, n.372). However, in a 1962 Bible commentary he was a little more cautious, saying, "The clear difference between Heb. h [with dot] and Egyp. k probably excludes identification of the names Zerah, zrh [with dot], and Osorkon, (w)srk(n); no convincing Egyptian or Ethiopian original for Zerah's name is yet forthcoming."
  I have two questions:
  1) Is Kitchen's 1972 statement generally acceptable to linguists or is there a little more flexibility?
  2) Has subsequent scholarship come up with any Egyptian/Ethiopian name other than Osorkon that corresponds to Hebrew Zerah, or is Zerah more likely a nick-name or pun?

  - Banyai Michael: Well, Kitchen makes the problem a little simpler as it is. Why should the name Osorkon come to directly to a Hebrew Zerah and not instead over a late hellenistic Greek source, which might have further garbled up the phonetics of the original eg. Osorkon? Furthermore is the tradition of foreign names not based on such mechanical schemes as Kitchen would like to have. A Hebrew reader can have patterned an Egyptian Osorkon into a name more likely to the hebrew tongue, creating a pun with his name.
  What makes the equation with Osorkon rather probable is the law of series: following a clear rendition of a Shoshenk, is it not to expect in a historical and geopolitical correct sequence a somewhat garbled Osorkon?
  A fact is: whatever a reading-equivalent we offer to Zerah - he ought have been a contemporary of Osorkon I, should the synchronisms offered by the bible not be result of an artificial chronological reconstruction.
  On the other hand should the man labelled Zirah, have lead an army of Ethiopians and Lybians, thus most probably coming out of Egypt. There is however not the slightest sign of military activities of Osorkon I in the East.
  Ergo: most probably are the Shishak and Zerah synchronisms late erudite interpolation of Chronicles. It is clear, that where 2 Chr. quotes some maybe-original source like 2 Chr. 7-8, this older source doesn't name anybody by his name but just by his function: king of Aram, Ethiopians, Libyans, etc. This might be a regular lack of such information in older, maybe-original sources. Probably begin the historical sources of Israel to name foreign kings only by the 9-th century on. Who knows?
  I would speak here of caution and examining all possibilities. At the moment does chronology play all on a single card, namely that the name of Shishaq in Chronicles is original.

• - - , B-Hebrew, newsgroup, [0], 19 Mar 2007, Karl W. Randolph: In 2 Chronicles 14:8 there is mention of a Zerach the Cushite (Ethiopian?) who invaded Judea during the reign of King Asa, apparently accompanied by a swarm of Libyans (2 Chronicles 16:8). 2 Chronicles mentions that he had about a million soldiers. Any record of him from other sources? He sounds important enough to have had other contemporary records, though Egyptian records from that time seem rather spotty. Could he have been a general under a Libyan pharaoh?
• - - , B-Hebrew, newsgroup, [0], 20 Mar 2007, Yigal Levin: The fact is, that no ruler by this name is known, and there was no known invasion of the land from the south after Shishak. There have been lots of theories about Zerah. Some have tried to identify him with the Egyptian Lybian kings of the 22nd dynasty, such as Osarkon I or II. Albright claimed that he was a Nubian general in the service of Egypt. Keel and Na'aman suggested that he was a nomdic cheiftain (and of course that the number "a thousand thousand" is over-stated). Others, of course, would claim that the whole story is a fabrication of the Chronicler.
• - - , B-Hebrew, newsgroup, [0], 21 Mar 2007, Karl W. Randolph: In the absence of more data, he apparently was a Nubian general under a Libyan pharaoh, and we are guessing.

---

Mede mogelijk dankzij