Throughout the Torah, the various Egyptian Pharaohs are always referred to as simply "Pharaoh" or "the king of Egypt" (or both), but never with any other parts of their official titulary.
By contrast, in Nach, some of them are also left otherwise unidentified (such as the one whose daughter Shlomo married), but for others a name is given:
And to top it off, some of the ones who are named in some places are unnamed in others. For example, Yechezkel, even though fully four chapters of his book are devoted to prophecies of the downfall of Egypt and its king, never names him as anything other than "Pharaoh" or "king of Egypt" (though we know from the events as described by Yirmiyahu that they refer to Chofra).
Does anyone address the reason for these differences? [If it's because the Torah didn't want to use any of their names, all of which refer to various Egyptian deities, then the same should be true in Nach. But, after all, the Torah seemingly has no problem mentioning other idolatrous personal names of non-Jewish figures, such as the Edomite kings Hadad (Gen. 36:35) and Baal-Chanan (ibid. v. 38).]
(In a comment, DoubleAA pointed out that the same thing can be asked regarding the Avimelechs of Philistia: they are referred to only by that title in Chumash, and mostly also in Nach; but the one of David's times is usually identified by his personal name, Achish (except in Ps. 34:1).)
Answer
When no name is given, the lesson and meaning of the story can be expanded for all generations. When a name is given, it is because what is being said is mostly just relevant to the time period that is being discussed, and generalities should not be derived from those verses.
As a quick example.. When dealing with Nimrod, Nimrod has his own special characteristically that allowed him to do what he did, and the fall that happened to him. However his successor had a different personality and ruled differently, and the character traits of Nimrod did not become the character traits of Babylonia forever. However with Egypt, we are not allowed to ever live in Egypt, and the character traits of the Pharoah, existed for all the Pharoahs. Egypt becomes a symbol for all the nations of the world that would eventually harm us, or treat us poorly, or cause us suffering. And the leaders of those nations would also be considered Pharoahs to us. When the behavior and details of a Pharoah did not match that pattern, then a name was given to them, so it would be recognized as not part of the pattern, but rather the behavior of that specific individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment