# فرعون



## Ayazid

السلام عليكم

When reading the Qur'an I noticed that the name of the Pharaoh, who opposed Moses is not accompanied by the definite article, although the word itself is a _terminus technicus_ for Ancient Egyptian monarchs and not a proper name.

Is there any grammatical explanation for the absence of the definite article in this case?


----------



## Arabus

Ancient Arabs used these titles as proper nouns. Not just Pharaoh, but also قيصر (Caeser), كسرى (Khusraw), etc.

This is not just an Arabic thing, see also the Hebrew Bible:

וינגע יהוה את פרעה נגעים גדלים ואת ביתו על דבר שרי אשת אברם

Also I believe the Romans and Greeks used such titles similarly.

   These are common ancient traditions, like using the plural personal pronoun when addressing a king, referring to a mountain series as "mount," etc.


----------



## Ayazid

مشكور يا باشا!

But it still makes me wonder why in the Sura of Joseph the Egyptian monarch is consistently called "king" (ملك) and never "Pharaoh". The latter word seems to be reserved exclusively for the king who opposed Moses in the Qur'an.


----------



## Timmy123

This is an interesting observation Ayazid. Can anyone shed any light on this?


----------



## cherine

The explanation I read is that the kind during Joseph's time was not an Egyptian pharaoh, but a king from the Hittite(?) الحيثيين who were ruling Egypt at the time.
But I don't know how accurate is this theory.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Really? My understanding that it was during the time of the Hyksos in the Second Intermediate Period, hence the control over both lower Egypt and Palestine. During that time Egypt was Divided and no one was Pharaoh, there were just several kings in divided rival kingdoms.

By the way, the title Pharaoh appeared only in the Second Kingdom and Third Kingdom, while in the First Kingdom he was not called Pharaoh even though he ruled a united Egypt. It also disappeared after the Third Kingdom and they went back to calling him king, and it was not used in the three intermediate periods.

In conclusion: while we call the ancient Egyptian history "the time of the pharaohs", in reality, the use of the title was quite limited.


----------



## clevermizo

Mahaodeh said:


> Really? My understanding that it was during the time of the Hyksos in the Second Intermediate Period,



To be fair, the Hyksos are sometimes identified as Hittite or Hurrian peoples, but their true origin is a little obscure.

However, the Hyksos became Egyptianized culturally, and I believe adopted the term Pharaoh for themselves (although the native Egyptian population may not have considered them as such).

Personally, I'm curious about the origin of the ن in فرعون. The word in Hebrew has no /n/ and the ancient Egyptian word was _p.r.3_ (vowels unknown, of course), again without /n/. I check the Greek and that doesn't seem to have it either (Φαραώ).


----------



## rayloom

clevermizo said:


> Personally, I'm curious about the origin of the ن in فرعون. The word in Hebrew has no /n/ and the ancient Egyptian word was _p.r.3_ (vowels unknown, of course), again without /n/. I check the Greek and that doesn't seem to have it either (Φαραώ).



*(My personal opinion on the final n in فرعون):
I don't know, but it could have been borrowed from Aramaic.
The source of such knowledge in the Arabian peninsula at that time were the Jews and Christians living there.

I'm not sure how Pharaoh is rendered in Aramaic so I can't be sure.

*(My personal opinion on why only the Pharaoh of Moses is referred to as فرعون):
I believe Arabs referred to the Pharaohs in general as ملك مصر the King of Egypt, that's why it's rendered thus in the story of Joseph in the Quran.
A story probably known to the Arabs only by the advent of Islam. 
Whereas, Pharaoh, the unnamed (even in the bible) king of Egypt at the time of Moses, was probably known to the Arabs much earlier from their contact with the Jews and Christians. That's probably why he's referred to as such in the Quran as well.


----------



## clevermizo

rayloom said:


> *(My personal opinion on the final n in فرعون):
> I don't know, but it could have been borrowed from Aramaic.
> The source of such knowledge in the Arabian peninsula at that time were the Jews and Christians living there.



In the Aramaic translation of Exodus (Targum Onkelos), the word is treated as in Hebrew as a proper name, with no nūn: (פַרְעֹה) and it's identical to the Hebrew.

However within the same text, he is also called "King of Egypt" (ملك مصر in Hebrew: מֶלֶךְ-מִצְרַיִם _melek miṣrayim _and Aramaic: מַלְכָּא דְּמִצְרַיִם _malkā d'miṣrayim_). 



			
				rayloom said:
			
		

> *(My personal opinion on why only the Pharaoh of Moses is referred to as فرعون):
> I believe Arabs referred to the Pharaohs in general as ملك مصر the King of Egypt, that's why it's rendered thus in the story of Joseph in the Quran.
> A story probably known to the Arabs only by the advent of Islam.
> Whereas, Pharaoh, the unnamed (even in the bible) king of Egypt at the time of Moses, was probably known to the Arabs much earlier from their contact with the Jews and Christians. That's probably why he's referred to as such in the Quran as well.



Yes I agree. I think that in religious usage the Hebrew/Aramaic word פַרְעֹה doesn't refer to any old Pharaoh, but specifically the Pharaoh in the story of Moses, otherwise other kings of Egypt are called King of Egypt even in the Bible. 

So I think it's settled that it's just treated like a proper name at least in the religious context. As to the nūn I'm still curious.

Out of curiosity in modern usage, can فرعون be used for any Pharaoh of Egypt? I.e. is it used like a proper name or a regular noun? (Outside of the religious context of course.)


----------



## cherine

clevermizo said:


> Out of curiosity in modern usage, can فرعون be used for any Pharaoh of Egypt? I.e. is it used like a proper name or a regular noun? (Outside of the religious context of course.)


Both forms are used (with and without the article). 
We even have 2 famous sayings/proverbs:
اللي تحسبه موسى يطلع فرعون
elli te7sebo muusa yeTla3 far3oon
You thought him Moses and turned out to be Pharaoh (= you thought he's a good person, but it turned out he's not)

قال يا فرعون إيش/إيه فرعنك؟ قال: ما لقيتش حد يلمني
al ya far3oon esh/eeh far3anak? al: mala2etsh 7ad yelemmeni
What made him a pharoah (=a tyrant) is that no one stopped him.

As you can see, we have a verb يتفرعن yetfar3an = to act as a pharaoh = to be a tyrant or to be a متكبِّر , because it's also used with arrogant people.

Also, outside the religious context, the term فراعنة is sometimes used for Egyptians in general, specially when speaking proudly about them (check in football context ). A young promising Egyptian (in any given international field) is likely to be called الفرعون الصغير , also with a positive connotation.


----------



## Josh_

clevermizo said:


> As to the nūn I'm still curious.


I am also curious about the nūn.

I thought I'd add another piece of the puzzle. 

The question about Aramaic got me thinking about whether or not the Syriac word for pharoah had a nūn on it. So I looked in Robert Payne Smith's "A Compendious Syriac Dictionary" (available online here) and, lo and behold, I found that it does. The word is ܦܪܥܘܢ, an exact cognate of the Arabic فرعون: 

ف = ܦ = f
ر = ܪ = r
ع = ܥ =l3 
و = ܘ = w
ن = ܢ =n


Now, I know that during the so-called Islamic Golden Age texts were translated into Arabic from Syriac as well as Greek. So this may be the reason Pharoah is فرعون in Arabic. This, however, still does not answer the question of why there is a nuun at all, since neither the Hebrew nor the ancient Egyptian word have /n/.


----------



## kifaru

I'm not sure if translation of these texts after the advent of Islam is a good explanation.




Josh_ said:


> Now, I know that during the so-called Islamic Golden Age texts were translated into Arabic from Syriac as well as Greek. So this may be the reason Pharoah is فرعون in Arabic. This, however, still does not answer the question of why there is a nuun at all, since neither the Hebrew nor the ancient Egyptian word have /n/.


----------



## Xence

clevermizo said:


> As to the nūn I'm still curious.





			
				Josh_ said:
			
		

> I am also curious about the nūn.



And so am I. Please add me to your club ! 


Off topic:
This _n_ also appears in the French _pharaon_, although it has the same etymology as the English _pharaoh _(Greek:  Φαραώ and then Latin: _pharao_). Perhaps it's due to the Latin genitive suffix _-onis_ ?


----------



## Mahaodeh

For some reason I feel that the word فِرْعَوْ seems to lack a constant, maybe it's just phonetic or maybe the close resembles to the form فعلون so the noon is added.


----------



## Josh_

kifaru said:


> I'm not sure if translation of these texts after the advent of Islam is a good explanation.


True.  I misspoke.  I was thinking of how the Arabs translated Greek and Syriac texts during the Islamic Golden Age, which, of course, came after the advent of Islam.  It slipped my mind that the word فرعون occurs in the Quran, which, of course, came before the Golden Age.

That does not rule out Syriac as the origin of the Arabic فرعون, however.  Syriac, an eastern dialect of Aramaic used largely by Christians, emerged as a dialect of Aramaic in the 1st century CE and became a lingua franca throughout much of the Middle East from the 4th century to the 8th century until it was largely replaced by Arabic.  It had a large impact on the development of the Arabic language.  The knowledge that the Arabs had of the Bible probably came via contact with Syriac speaking Christians (which is probably what Rayloom was getting at in post #8).  So, the idea that Arabic فرعون came from the Syriac  ܦܪܥܘܢ is very plausible.  

There are other biblical names and terms that occur in Arabic, which seem to indicate a transliteration from the equivalent Syriac terms, rather than the Hebrew. But as that is not the object of this thread I won't go into that. 

If we assume the Syriac term to be the origin of the Arabic term, then that answers the question of why فرعون has a ن on it, but (repeating what I said in my previous post) it still does not answer the question of why there is a nuun at all; why the Syriac term has an ܢ (n) on it, since  neither the Hebrew nor the ancient Egyptian word have /n/.    Perhaps a good knowledge of Syriac (of which I do not have) would help to answer that question.

On a side note, I wanted to clarify something.  In my last post I wrote:

ف = ܦ = f

However, I wanted to note that the Syriac ܦ is pronounced as 'p'. So I probably should have written:   

ف = ܦ = p/f




Xence said:


> And so am I. Please add me to your club !


Membership card's in the mail.



> Off topic:
> This _n_ also appears in the French _pharaon_, although it has the same etymology as the English _pharaoh _(Greek:  Φαραώ and then Latin: _pharao_). Perhaps it's due to the Latin genitive suffix _-onis_ ?


In that vein a thought that crossed my mind was that the word was originally فرع or فرعه فرعو, but read with تنوين الضم, so فرعٌ would be pronounced _fira3un_ (and فرعهٌ pronounced firstly as fira3hun, with the 'h' eventually dropping out). Eventually, for whatever reason, the nuun was written and it became فرعون. 

However, I doubt that is the case.  I think the Syriac theory is more plausible.


----------



## Faylasoof

Hello Josh, Xence and all,




Josh_ said:


> ....
> That does not rule out Syriac as the origin of the Arabic





Josh_ said:


> فرعون, however. Syriac, an eastern dialect of Aramaic used largely by Christians, emerged as a dialect of Aramaic in the 1st century CE and became a lingua franca throughout much of the Middle East from the 4th century to the 8th century until it was largely replaced by Arabic. It had a large impact on the development of the Arabic language. The knowledge that the Arabs had of the Bible probably came via contact with Syriac speaking Christians (which is probably what Rayloom was getting at in post #8). So, the idea that Arabic فرعون came from the Syriac ܦܪܥܘܢ is very plausible.
> .......
> 
> If we assume the Syriac term to be the origin of the Arabic term, then that answers the question of why فرعون has a ن on it, but (repeating what I said in my previous post) it still does not answer the question of why there is a nuun at all; why the Syriac term has an ܢ (n) on it, since neither the Hebrew nor the ancient Egyptian word have /n/. Perhaps a good knowledge of Syriac (of which I do not have) would help to answer that question.
> 
> ......
> 
> In that vein a thought that crossed my mind was that the word was originally فرع or فرعه فرعو, but read with تنوين الضم, so فرعٌ would be pronounced _fira3un_ (and فرعهٌ pronounced firstly as fira3hun, with the 'h' eventually dropping out). Eventually, for whatever reason, the nuun was written and it became فرعون.
> 
> However, I doubt that is the case. I think the Syriac theory is more plausible.


 I agree Josh that Syriac cannot be ruled out and this route is quite plausible! As for this, indeed better knowledge of Syriac is needed but you are absolutely correct that neither Egyptian nor Hebrew have a <nuun>  at the end, which begs the question where it came from. But ....more below!

Again, I’m more inclined to believe this theory!



Xence said:


> And so am I. Please add me to your club !
> Off topic:
> This _n_ also appears in the French _pharaon_, although it has the same etymology as the English _pharaoh _(Greek: Φαραώ and then Latin: _pharao_). Perhaps it's due to the Latin genitive suffix _-onis_ ?


 Xence, you may not be wrong there and your “off-topic” remark is not really off-topic ! Either Latin or, perhaps more likely, (_Koine_) Greek could the source of the terminal <_nuun_> we are discussing! I think it is Greek!

 _των __φάρων_ = _of the pharaohs_ - the _genitive plural_ form of _'o φάρος_ (= the pharaoh), the nominative singular in Greek! So, for example, _ἱστορία__ των φάρων (historia ton faron)_ in Greek would be translated something like  _An Inquiry (= A History) of the Pharoahs_. It is not unthinkable that this Greek plural genitive form (_φάρων_) entered Syro-Aramiac and then Arabic itself - a route suggested by Josh. 

 Quite why the Greek genitive plural? I simply don’t know and I realize the weakness of this argument! But it is very tempting that this might be the reason for the terminal _nuun_ given that it is not present in Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian and we don't always have logical derivations going from one language (in this case, possibly Greek) to others, viz. Syriac / Arabic! 

Moreover, we should keep in mind that quite a few educated (perhaps also some semi-educated) people in the Holy Land (and elsewhere in the Middle East) in ancient times spoke not only Syro-Aramiac but also Greek and the presence of Greek preceded that of Latin in this region due to Alexander's conquests being well before Rome's. So I think فرعون might ultimately turn out to have a Greek origin.

BTW, if one day this is established (not quite sure how or if ever), then I hope you all would vote for me as the honorary president of the _Nuun Club_!


----------



## Abu Rashid

Josh_ said:
			
		

> Now, I know that during the so-called Islamic Golden Age texts were  translated into Arabic from Syriac as well as Greek. So this may be the  reason Pharoah is فرعون in Arabic.



Actually the period just prior to the advent of Islam was probably more of a period of interaction between Arabic & Aramaic. For about 1000 years leading up to the Islamic period, there were Arab kingdoms which adopted Aramaic (Syriac being the dominant dialect much of the time I believe) as their official language. These were the Nabataeans and Ghassanids and other Arabs that had spilled north into the Fertile Crescent.

On the issue of the nuun, I remember there being a nuun that can be added to the end of words to intensify them, perhaps this is a case of it?


----------



## Faylasoof

Hi, 


Abu Rashid said:


> On the issue of the nuun, I remember there being a nuun that can be added to the end of words to intensify them, perhaps this is a case of it?


 If you are talking of نون خفیفة and نون ثقیلة then they’ll be forمضارعverbs. That is how we intensify them for a future / unfinished action.

One could argue that فَرَعَ can give فَرع_ far3un_; فَرعَان_ far3aan_; یَفرَعَنَّ_ yafra3anna_ etc.; even فرعون on the form فعلون as Mahaodeh mentioned above,but just let me add this: 

I looked up the Leipzig (1868) edition of *کتاب المعرب للجولیقی * , page 112, and he says:

والفَرعَنَة مُشتقة مِن فِرعَونَ ولَیسا بِعَرَبِیِّینِ

I think Sibawayh also considered فِرعَونَ to be a foreign (i.e. non-Arabic) word, but I haven’t found a reference for it as yet.

Now this is interesting, 



Abu Rashid said:


> Actually the period just prior to the advent of Islam was probably more of a period of interaction between Arabic & Aramaic. For about 1000 years leading up to the Islamic period, there were Arab kingdoms which adopted Aramaic (Syriac being the dominant dialect much of the time I believe) as their official language. These were the Nabataeans and Ghassanids and other Arabs that had spilled north into the Fertile Crescent.


 …. because I too was thinking along these lines and that whatever we’ve said above doesn’t necessarily mean that فِرعَونَ had never been incorporated in at least some dialects of Pre-Islamic Arabic and not become part of Arabic lexicon in some quarters. However it’ll be difficult to date the entry of فِرعَونَ into any of these dialects, the Meccan dialect included, as we are dealing with an essentially oral rather than a scribal culture and _jahiliyyah_ poetry may not be much help either as they may not have been much interested in themes dealing with distant kings! Not sure if this word is found in any poetry of that period. It wouldn't surprise me if it isn't!


----------



## Josh_

Abu Rashid said:


> Actually the period just prior to the advent of Islam was probably more of a period of interaction between Arabic & Aramaic. For about 1000 years leading up to the Islamic period, there were Arab kingdoms which adopted Aramaic (Syriac being the dominant dialect much of the time I believe) as their official language. These were the Nabataeans and Ghassanids and other Arabs that had spilled north into the Fertile Crescent.


Yes, I agree. Please see my post #15 in which I corrected my previous misstatement.



> On the issue of the nuun, I remember there being a nuun that can be added to the end of words to intensify them, perhaps this is a case of it?


Syriac has an emphatic _alep_ added to nouns I am aware of.  I don't know about an emphatic _nuun_, however. I'll have to look into it.


----------



## rayloom

Thanks Josh_ for the search in Syriac.
It is strange though, that the word in Targumic Aramaic has no nuun, while in Syriac it does. 
Does it suggest that the nuun is a later addition, probably as other users have said, due to influence from Latin or Greek.

As for the emphatic aleph suffixed to nouns, I think it only served to make them definite. Not sure why it's called emphatic! (correct me if I'm wrong)


----------



## Faylasoof

Educated Eastern Christians (scholars especially) were often bilingual, speaking / using both Syriac and Greek; a practice that continued well into the Islamic era when the likes of Hunayn Ibn Ishaq, Abu Bishr Matta ibn Yunis etc. got invlolved in the translation movement. 

The terminal <nuun> in Syriac could be explained by assuming that the Greek word _φάρων (faron)_ entered the Syriac language, as did some other Greek words, aided by speakers who were bilingual in Syriac & Greek _- and this may have happened early on_. I mean well before the translation movement. ….. It had to.


----------



## Ayazid

cherine said:


> Both forms are used (with and without the article).
> We even have 2 famous sayings/proverbs:
> اللي تحسبه موسى يطلع فرعون
> elli te7sebo muusa yeTla3 far3oon
> You thought him Moses and turned out to be Pharaoh (= you thought he's a good person, but it turned out he's not)
> 
> قال يا فرعون إيش/إيه فرعنك؟ قال: ما لقيتش حد يلمني
> al ya far3oon esh/eeh far3anak? al: mala2etsh 7ad yelemmeni
> What made him a pharoah (=a tyrant) is that no one stopped him.
> 
> As you can see, we have a verb يتفرعن yetfar3an = to act as a pharaoh = to be a tyrant or to be a متكبِّر , because it's also used with arrogant people.
> 
> Also, outside the religious context, the term فراعنة is sometimes used for Egyptians in general, specially when speaking proudly about them (check in football context ). A young promising Egyptian (in any given international field) is likely to be called الفرعون الصغير , also with a positive connotation.



I noticed that the plural form فراعنة is habitually used with the meaning القدماء المصريين and even seems to be more popular than the latter term, which makes sense, since it is shorter, albeit inaccurate. Actually, for some speakers is this meaning so natural that they are apparently unaware of the fact that the word itself denotes only the Ancient Egyptian rulers. For example, some time ago I found in an Arabic internet forum a thread with the title:

إذا كنت من المصريين القدماء هل تفضل أن تكون من البلاط الملكي أم ستكون فرعون عادي ؟ وماذا ستفعل ؟

The negative connotations of the word فرعون among Muslim Arabs are understandable, given the prominence of the story of Pharaoh with Moses in the Qur'an, where he is mentioned several times as a supreme example of disbelief and tyranny. Some [...] Muslims [...], who generally have a deep aversion to any praise of the pre-Islamic history of Egypt, also often claim that the Qur'anic terms آل فرعون or قوم فرعون ("Pharaoh's people") refer to the whole Ancient Egyptian population, which was according to this interpretation cursed and punished by God and therefore it's totally unacceptible that any Muslim be proud of them


----------



## cherine

Ayazid said:


> I noticed that the plural form فراعنة is habitually used with the meaning القدماء المصريين


You can say قدماء المصريين or المصريون/المصريين القدماء but I've never heard القدماء المصريين and it sounds a bit strange as a structure.


> some time ago I found in an Arabic internet forum a thread with the title:
> 
> إذا كنت من المصريين القدماء هل تفضل أن تكون من البلاط الملكي أم ستكون فرعون عادي ؟ وماذا ستفعل ؟


I think the users of that forum have a common understanding of these words. Otherwise it would sound a bit strange to hear فرعون عادي . Personally, I would understand it, at first, as a king/pharo who's nothing too impressive, who have no power.

For those who use فرعون for any/all ancient Egyptian(s), the difference is made -when speaking about kings- by saying ملوك الفراعنة.


> The negative connotations of the word فرعون among Muslim Arabs are understandable, given the prominence of the story of Pharaoh with Moses in the Qur'an, where he is mentioned several times as a supreme example of disbelief and tyranny. Some Muslims, who generally have a deep aversion to any praise of the pre-Islamic history of Egypt, also often claim that the Qur'anic terms آل فرعون or قوم فرعون ("Pharaoh's people") refer to the whole Ancient Egyptian population, which was according to this interpretation cursed and punished by God and therefore it's totally unacceptible that any Muslim be proud of them


I don't want to go into religious discussions, but anyway, this generalisation is certainly not accurate. In the story of Moses, there's a mention of رجل مؤمن من آل فرعون يكتم إيمانه (see سورة غافر، آية 28) and this verse (from سورة التحريم  , verse # 11)

وَضَرَبَ ٱللَّهُ مَثَلاً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ ٱمْرَأَتَ فِرْعَوْنَ


----------



## rayloom

I agree with Cherine. 

People generally understand that فرعون refers to the king, but accept  the use of فراعنة in general. I believe it is also sometimes used  (nowadays) to mean "kings", the Egyptian national soccer team is called  منتخب الفراعنة.
I also think that the term فرعوني is used mainly because it quite specifically refers to Ancient Egypt and Ancient Egyptians. Using مصري might be too general, and من المصريين القدماء is just too long. Also notice that the form used in Arabic has a yaa nisba, which can be used to refer to the time period of the Pharaohs. 
Like the use of أموي عباسي...etc in Arabic.

Thus, the thread titled "إذا كنت من المصريين القدماء هل تفضل أن تكون من البلاط الملكي أم ستكون فرعون عادي ؟ وماذا ستفعل ؟" has a typo I believe. It should be: فرعوني عادي (or to be a bit more correct فرعونيا عاديا) if it were to refer to the people in general and not a king.


----------



## suma

cherine said:


> We even have 2 famous sayings/proverbs:
> اللي تحسبه موسى يطلع فرعون
> elli te7sebo muusa yeTla3 far3oon
> You thought him Moses and turned out to be Pharaoh (= you thought he's a good person, but it turned out he's not)
> 
> قال يا فرعون إيش/إيه فرعنك؟ قال: ما لقيتش حد يلمني
> al ya far3oon esh/eeh far3anak? al: mala2etsh 7ad yelemmeni
> What made him a pharoah (=a tyrant) is that no one stopped him.
> 
> ...



 O I like those sayings so much. 
Thank you


----------



## إسكندراني

rayloom said:


> Thus, the thread titled "إذا كنت من المصريين القدماء هل تفضل أن تكون من البلاط الملكي أم ستكون فرعون عادي ؟ وماذا ستفعل ؟" has a typo I believe. It should be: فرعوني عادي (or to be a bit more correct فرعونيا عاديا) if it were to refer to the people in general and not a king.


I agree with you except for this paragraph. We would never say فرعوني to describe a person.
But I also can't make sense of the thread title. What's inside that thread? I imagine it must be saying do you want to be benevolent (like royalty) or malicious (like pharoah).


----------



## cherine

إسكندراني said:


> I agree with you except for this paragraph. We would never say فرعوني to describe a person.


Why not? Imagine a photo with an Ancient Egyptian, the description would be: صورة رجل فرعوني .


> But I also can't make sense of the thread title. What's inside that thread? I imagine it must be saying do you want to be benevolent (like royalty) or malicious (like pharoah).


I don't think so.
Assuming that website, group of people or the poster was using فرعون for مصري قديم , the sentence -although we agree is a bit strange and not common- means: Would you prefer to be part of the royal court of a common Ancient Egyptian/a commoner.


----------



## إسكندراني

cherine said:


> Why not? Imagine a photo with an Ancient Egyptian, the description would be: صورة رجل فرعوني .


But it couldn't be صورة لفرعوني standalone; this is what I would find strange.

As for the thread, I want to find out. You might be right.


----------



## Antonio Tavanti

English "pharaoh" is said to come from Ancient Greek φαραώ (pharao) through Latin "pharaonis", although I think it could be possible that it directly borrowed from Greek or Hebrew (which would better explain the lack of final "-n" and the insertion of "-h").
Whatever the case, at the very bottom of the line there is the Ancient Egyptian word 
 (pr-ʿ3), which literally means "great house".
This title had always referred to the king's palace (as the name suggests), and only lately (during the New Kingdom, if I'm not mistaken) passed to refer the king himself.

In the Tanakh "Pharaoh" is used just like a proper name, as if it were the birth name of the pharaoh living at the time of Moses (if there ever was one). This probably means that cultures outside Egypt had scarce knowledge of what the title really meant, and understood it and used it as a proper name for all pharaohs. This must be true especially for Jews, because compiling the story of Moses they used it just this way.

I don't know about the Arabic word but it must have come either from the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Tanakh). It could also have an etymology on its own, since Arab beduins were already active in the first centuries of CE (if not before), and they must have had a term to refer to the leader of that nation (Egypt) whose armed forces had so often penetrated into "their" lands.


(Sources: a degree in Egyptology, among others.)


P.S. never say that the Hyksos were Hittites... That would be quite of a heresy within scholarship.


/EDIT
Tried to put the hieroglyphics image inline but failed. Perhaps it's not possible.


----------



## Ayazid

cherine said:


> You can say قدماء المصريين or المصريون/المصريين القدماء but I've never heard القدماء المصريين and it sounds a bit strange as a structure.



I had found all these expressions on the net and wasn't sure which one to use, so I just randomly chose that one 



> I think the users of that forum have a common understanding of these words. Otherwise it would sound a bit strange to hear فرعون عادي . Personally, I would understand it, at first, as a king/pharo who's nothing too impressive, who have no power.
> 
> For those who use فرعون for any/all ancient Egyptian(s), the difference is made -when speaking about kings- by saying ملوك الفراعنة.



I imagine that it might be an idiosincracy of the original poster, caused precisely by the fact that the plural فراعنة is used for قدماء المصريين, then it's only natural that the singular  فرعون means a single مصري قديم .



> I don't want to go into religious discussions, but anyway, this generalisation is certainly not accurate. In the story of Moses, there's a mention of رجل مؤمن من آل فرعون يكتم إيمانه (see سورة غافر، آية 28) and this verse (from سورة التحريم  , verse # 11)
> 
> وَضَرَبَ ٱللَّهُ مَثَلاً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ ٱمْرَأَتَ فِرْعَوْنَ



It's not accurate both from religious and historical point of view, which makes even more astounding the fact that there people who actually believe it.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Antonio Tavanti said:
			
		

> It could also have an etymology on its own, since Arab beduins were already active in the first centuries of CE (if not before)



Indeed. There are definitively Arabic inscriptions in the Naqab/Sinai region from at least 350 B.C.E.

_Source: Lipinski, Edward (2001). Semitic Languages: Outlines of a Comparative Grammar p. 75._


----------



## Antonio Tavanti

Yep. As far as I know though the first "Arabs" to be ever recorded are those encountered and fought by Assirian rulers, something that bring them out to the scene in as ancient times as 7th and 6th century b.C.
(Affirmations again backed up by my university studies.)

I was just being vague not to go too off-topic.


----------

