I like Noonan's brief paper. We, of course, must recognise that Egyptian loanword identification in the Hebrew Bible is not an exact science.
We must recognise their three possible manifestationforms:
1) terms with a definite or strong probability of Egyptian origin;
2) terms with a high probability of being of Egyptian origin;
3) words for which an Egyptian origin has been suggested but is highly improbable.
Noonan’s article tends, correctly, to avoids words in the third category. However, I would have preferred to see him address more in the second category - but then, there was probably a word limit he had to meet.
I like Noonan's brief paper. We, of course, must recognise that Egyptian loanword identification in the Hebrew Bible is not an exact science.
We must recognise their three possible manifestationforms:
1) terms with a definite or strong probability of Egyptian origin;
2) terms with a high probability of being of Egyptian origin;
3) words for which an Egyptian origin has been suggested but is highly improbable.
Noonan’s article tends, correctly, to avoids words in the third category. However, I would have preferred to see him address more in the second category - but then, there was probably a word limit he had to meet.