Bill Cooper and chapter 16

Egy. word for prison = d (Archaic noun)

Egy. word for prisoner = see Vygus 718

Look at his choice of CEC dates

What does the Brooklyn p. 351446 actually say about the source of Hebrew/Semitic names?

p. 121: to be read in the pages of a Bible commentary which aspires to educate college and
university the world over on the Bibles historical narratives, well, words fail me.

We shall, of course, be killing two birds with the same proverbial stone, for by showing the
authenticity of some of the fine detail of these chapters, we shall simultaneously be showing their
antiquity

Prison nrt = prison, barrier, restricted area [noun - arch.] D19 - X1 - O1 Vygus 84.
ra keep, prison [noun - arch.] M8 - G1 - O29 - Y1 - D21 - Z1 - O1 Vygus 864.
ra / Ara prison, dungeon, gateway, lodge [noun - arch.] M8 - G1 - Z4 - D21 - Z1 - O29 - Y1 - O1
Vygus 868.
it / itw fortress, prison, jail [noun - arch.] M17 - X1 - V28 - D20 - O1 Vygus 1057.

Office of Prime Minister:

Because the Premiership was not intentionally created, there is no exact date when its evolution
began. A meaningful starting point, however, is 16889 when James II fled England and the
Parliament of England confirmed William and Mary as joint constitutional monarchs, enacting
legislation that limited their authority and that of their successors: the Bill of Rights (1689), the
Mutiny Bill (1689), the Triennial Bill (1694), the Treason Act (1696) and the Act of Settlement (1701).
Known collectively as the Revolutionary Settlement, these acts transformed the constitution, shifting
the balance of power from the Sovereign to Parliament. They also provided the basis for the
evolution of the office of Prime Minister, which did not exist at that time.

The vizier was the highest official in Ancient Egypt to serve the king, or pharaoh during the Old,
Middle, and New Kingdoms.[1] Vizier is the generally accepted rendering of ancient Egyptian tjat,
tjaty etc., among Egyptologists.[2] The Instructon of Rekhmire-(Installaton of the Vizier), a New
Kingdom text, defines many of the duties of the tjaty, and lays down codes of behavior. The viziers
were often appointed by the pharaoh, most from loyalty or talent.

Definition of VIZIER
1: A high executive officer of various Muslim countries and especially of the Ottoman Empire
2: A civil officer in ancient Egypt having vice regal powers

Origin of VIZIER
Turkish vezir, from Arabic wazr
First Known Use: 1599

Moses and the Levites:

Cooper cites Unger, who in turn cites Meeks (1939) Moses and the Levites. The American Journal
of Semitc Languages and Literatures, 56, Yale University Press, pp. 117-118.

"An insightful classic that retains its vitality. A front-rank scholar and teacher has poured a lifetime
of learning into this outstanding commentary." --Hershel Shanks founder of the Biblical
Archaeology Society and the editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review.

http://www.christianbook.com/understanding-genesis-nahum-sarna/9780805202533/pd/02536X

Accessed 25/07/14

1. What should we make of the word achu?

It means a reed-meadow, or (more generally), reed-grass. Endnote 2 bible-

history.com/faussets/M/Meadow
p. 122: reed grass = iArw Vygus 917, 918 / At = meadow, orchard, field [noun] E1 - M2 - Z2 / can
also be written to mean arable land, meadow, tlled land [noun] G1 - N23 - Z1 - N21 - Z3 / or as
meadow, orchard, field [noun] G25 - J1 - X1 - N21 however, a reed meadow/marsh/swamp was A
field, meadow, countryside, marsh, swamp, arable land [noun] N37 - G1 - M8

Cooper cites http://www.bible-history.com/faussets/M/Meadow

Genesis 41:2. Achu; an Egyptian word, akh akh, "verdant," translated therefore rather "in the reed
grass." So Job 8:11 "rush," the paper reed or papyrus of the Nile; "can the achu grow without
water?" The fat kine fed on the reed grass which in the plenteous years grew to the very margin of
the water, but the lean stood on the dry "brink" (Genesis 41:2-3). "Out of the meadows of Gibeah"
(Judges 20:38): ma'areeh; rather, "from the naked (from 'arah 'to strip of trees) plains of Gibeah."
Not that the treeless plain was the hiding place of the ambush, but when the men broke from the
ambush they came "from the treeless plain toward the town." The Peshito Syriac, reads the vowel
points slightly different, me'arah, "the cave."
Fausset, Andrew Robert M.A., D.D., "Definition for 'Meadow' Fausset's Bible Dictionary". 1878.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=41&t=KJV#s=t_conc_41002

' achuw
Reed grass = iArw Vygus 917 however At = meadow, orchard, field [noun] E1 - M2
- Z2 / can also be written to mean arable land, meadow, tlled land [noun] G1 - N23 - Z1 - N21 - Z3 /
or as meadow, orchard, field [noun] G25 - J1 - X1 - N21

Hathor took the form of the "Seven Hathors" who were associated with fate and fortune telling. It
was thought that the "Seven Hathors" knew the length of every childs life from the day it was born
and questioned the dead souls as they travelled to the land of the dead. Her priests could read the
fortune of a newborn child, and act as oracles to explain the dreams of the people. People would
travel for miles to beseech the goddess for protection, assistance and inspiration. The "Seven
Hathors" were worshiped in seven cities: Waset (Thebes), Iunu (On, Heliopolis), Aphroditopolis, Sinai,
Momemphis, Herakleopolis, and Keset. http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/hathor.html

A serious concern is that Cooper continually uses secondary references. An example: note 4Unger,
Archaeology and the Old Testament, p. 132Unger was citing Albright, in Youngs Analytcal
Concordance, (1879) p. 27.

http://www.netivot-shalom.org.il/parshaeng/vayeshev5768.php
Beit Hasohar [Prison]
Linguists [ReDaK in his Sefer HaShorashim, Shoresh "SHR"] explain sohar as an arched chamber,
similar in expression to agan hasohar [a round goblet] (Song of Songs 7:3). In my opinion it is an
underground house having a small opening above ground, through which the prisoners are lowered
and from which they have light. The word sohar is thus derived from the word sihara [light] in
Aramaic, just as in Hebrew, Scripture says: A transparency [tzohar] shall you make for the ark
(Bereishit 6:16), the word tzohar being derived from tzaharayim [mid-day - when the sun reaches its
zenith]. The difference between tzohar and sohar is that tzohar connotes an abundance of light,
while sohar connotes minimal light.
(RaMBaN Bereishit 39:20, Chavel translation)

Coopers bet ha-sohar bayith

cohar maqowm (Masoretic

into the prison, the place).

Beit Hasohar This [expression] is only found in these parashiyot, and it seems, as Ibn Ezra suggests,
that it is an Egyptian word, since it is immediately followed by an explanation, the place where, etc.,
as is found in the verse pur is the lot (Esther 9:24). This is also a proof of the Torah's antiquity, for
Moses uses an Egyptian word that was well known to his generation but unknown to the generations
that followed him, for we often find the term beit hakele [another term for "prison"] in the Prophets,
but never once the expression beit hasohar. Ibn Ezra thought that Potiphar did not have Joseph killed
because he was uncertain about the case, and HaKorem contends that he knew that Joseph was
innocent but sent him to prison to cover for his wife - for a similar idea, see Bereishit Rabbah (7:17).

The present worldview is the key to interpreting the past

The Purpose of Prison
Historically, imprisonment was based on punishing those who wronged society, by inflicting suffering
of the body similar to the pound of flesh depicted within Shakespeares Merchant of Venice. In
contrast to this concept, todays imprisonment is no longer simply intended as an acute form of
corporal punishment, but a method by which to work on a person's mind as well as his body, through
3 distinct areas which include:
Punishment
Deterrence
And Rehabilitation
These 3 unique areas, when interlinked into a single process are intended to allow society to remove
criminals from a position where they may continue their criminal behaviour, place them into an
institution that satisfies the masses who desire some form of retribution, persuade other would be
criminals that such activities are not beneficial, and in time sculpt them into productive and law
abiding citizens through positive psychological conditioning who may later be re-integrated into
society.
In theory, such a concept fairs well but unfortunately in reality, the large range of negative
psychological experiences encountered within prison do not lead to this otherwise well thought out
plan.
Let us begin by looking at the textbook objectives and responsibilities of prisons which once again
are three.
The safekeeping of all inmates;
The maintaining and improving of welfare of all confined within it;
And the performance of these objectives with the maximum of efficiency and economy.
Safe keeping generally comprises of keeping inmates locked away, counted, and controlled whilst
allowing for isolated moments of welfare activities to satisfy needs through recreation, education
and counseling. Unfortunately, the welfare and psychological freedom of the individual inmate does
not depend on how much education, recreation, and counseling he receives but rather, on how he
manages to live and relate with the others inmates who constitute his crucial and only meaningful
world.
It is what the prisoner experiences in this world; how he attains satisfaction, and how he avoids its
detrimental effects through the adjustment process known as prisonization that ultimately decides
how, if ever, he will emerge.
It has also been recognized, through simulations of prison environments, that lockups and isolation
have the habit of dehumanizing prisoners by making them feel anonymous, and breeding ill feelings
because of their rejection and condemnation by society as a whole.
Likewise, it must be remembered that offenders have been drawn from a society in which
possessions are closely linked with concepts of personal worth by numerous cultural definitions.
However in prison, inmates find themselves reduced to a level of living near bare subsistence.

However, the present is NOT the key to the past

The only structures other that grain silos that had any roundness were some towers on fortresses,
such as the fort at Buhen. (See photo.)

Joseph is an Islamic prophet found in the Quran, the holy scripture of Islam, and corresponds to
Joseph, a character from the Jewish religious scripture, the Taanach, and the Christian Bible. It is one
of the common names in the Middle East and among Muslim nations.
While thus discharging with perfect success his manifold duties of major-domo (Egyp. mer-per)
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/joseph.htm

Wallis Budge, E.A., An Egyptan Hieroglyphic Dictonary Vol 1. London, John Murray, 1920, p. 312.

Mer per or (chief of the house, steward, majordomo)

And also: mer per wr (Chief Steward)

paqad (Hiphil perfect.): to set over, make overseer, appoint an overseer. Some nouns can
function as verbs and abstract nouns are no exception. For example, see how the word fear is used
in the following two sentences. I fear the night. In this sentence, fear shows action so its a verb.
The night was shrouded in fear. In this sentence, fear is an abstract noun because you cant
physically touch, feel, hear, taste, smell, or see it.

Words beginning with s often denote a causatve verb; for instance, the verb mn (V. 2235) means "be
established" and its derived form smn (V. 1770) means "cause to be established", hence "establish";
qb (1143) means "to be cool", sqb means "to refresh", ...

Thus in the case of Gen 39:5 paqad carries a causative meaning he [Potiphar] appointed him
[Joseph] over his house and over all he owned. (Taken from the Masoretic.)

There is no etymological link between the Hebrew paqad and the Egyptian m-r pr. Furthermore,
there is no discernable comparatve method that can be invoked to explain the imagined link
between the two languages.

That said, m-r pr is a plausible candidate for Josephs elevated status. In context, m-r means
literally the one in whom is the wordthat is to say, the one who has the authority to issue orders.
Budge got it wrong to the extent that he supposed that m-r was one word and one soundit isnt.

Joseph was given the authority of Potiphar, just as at a later date he was given the authority of
Pharaoh You shall be over my house, and all my people shall be ruled according to your word
the only difference between the two elevations was degree of status.
There was a graphic pun around r, which can mean both mouth and word, and was also written
using Gardiner F20 tongue (the tongue being the one in the mouth). always meant steward
and meant Chief Steward.
Ancient Egyptian provides numerous alternatives that describe what we in the 21 st century label as
overseer.
Examples are: aA n pr major-domo ; imy r wt overseer of the Estate ; imy r
pr steward ; imy r imiwt pr overseer of the Household goods ; imy r pr wr
High Steward

What is the source Dr. Ailing uses for the dates of the reigns of the pharaohs in this series of articles,
and how did he select that source? There seems to be little agreement among references in the
public domain concerning these dates. Bob Steckbeck - 10/03/2012
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/18/Joseph-in-Egypt-Part-I.aspx

It seems that nobody has attempted to answer your question. I just saw it now for the first time, so I
will try to help you. First of all, I cannot speak for Dr. Ailing or how he came up with his regnal dates
for Egyptian kings. I do not agree with all of his numbers, but I do agree with his date of 1878 BC as
the accession-year of Sesostris III. There is absolutely no agreement on precise dating for Egyptian
monarchs, and it would be a long discussion to tell you about all of the nuances. We simply do not
know the regnal dates for selected kings. Kitchen has his own dates, as well as Simpson, and many
others. When I began sorting through this minefield in the late 1990's, I realized that I need my own
chronology, based on my own choice of the right 'system' to use (due to being convinced that it's the
proper one, for the right reasons), and based on my own study of the regnal length of each pharaoh.
This took a LOT of work. I was revising it for years. It's still open to improvement, but I haven't
modified the numbers more than once in the last 5-6 years. As one of our profs told us when I was a
seminary student, "The danger with standing on someone else's shoulders is that you both will fall." I
have great confidence in my chronology, but not enough to say that I have to be right everywhere.
Dr. Wood has asked me for some years to publish it, so that he can reference it in his articles and use
it as a standard. I'm happy to say that it will be published as an appendix in the book I am writing
now, entitled, "Evidence of Israelites in Egypt from Joseph's Time until the Exodus". If you would like
a copy, I will send it to you. You merely need to go to my academia.edu webpage and find my e-mail
address on the left side, then send me a request by e-mail. I hope this helps.
Another splendid example of an over-inflated academic ego see my notes on Isaac Newton
Douglas Petrovich, PhD Candidate, ThM, M.Div., MA
University of Toronto, NMC Dept.
Major: Syro-Palestinian Archaeology
1st Minor: Egyptology
2nd Minor: ANE Religions
Douglas Petrovich - 31/05/2013 14:11:55
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/18/Joseph-in-Egypt-Part-I.aspx

However, Nolen Jones calculated Josephs birth as 1745 BC and death as 1635 BC.
Rohl (p. 15) gives Senuseret III 1836-1817; Petrovich (above) Senuseret III 1878-1859.

The metaphor of dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants (Latin: nanos gigantum humeris insidentes)
expresses the meaning of "discovering truth by building on previous discoveries". While it can be traced to at
least the 12th century, attributed to Bernard of Chartres, its most familiar expression in English is found in a
1676 letter of Isaac Newton:
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

The attribution to Bernard is due to John of Salisbury. In 1159, John wrote in his Metalogicon:
Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to [puny] dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that
we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because
we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature.
The Metalogicon of John Salisbury. University of California Press. p. 167.

What Des-cartes did was a good step. You [Hooke] have added much several ways, & especially in taking ye
colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders
of Giants. (Bold emphasis added.)
Excerpt from a letter to Robert Hooke, from Isaac Newton, Cambridge, 5th February, 1676: in Maury, J-P.
(1992). Newton, Understanding the Cosmos. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., pp. 115117.