Back in the ancient Biblical times, specific names were usually reserved within families and the ‘extended’ family tribes, to preserve the memory of the ancestors that bore those names.
Since the name Shiphrah occurs on a papyrus dated to the expected time of the Biblical Shiphrah, it is highly unlikely that there was another of that same name at the same time...........
I agree.
Yes, especially since they used the exact, same spelling... right?
Oh, wait - What's that you say? The Egyptians used hieroglyphics, and the Hebrews didn't?
Oh, wait - What's that you say? Neither writing system represented vowels? So, this is like comparing "Mike" written with Latin letters, and "Mike" written in the Cyrillic alphabet?
This article employs the very-familiar "Straw Man" tactic to allegedly "debunk" archeological science: First, claim that archeology (or biochemistry, or astronomy, etc.) had previously held it as an article of faith that something was totally impossible - and then assert that this latest discovery is precisely that impossibility. The typical layman, after all, won't know the difference. The authors of such articles typically attempt to force the authorities they are interviewing into making some statement like, "At present, we cannot explain this new finding" - as though the authorities were "dumbfounded," and the whole "House of Cards" of the scientific method were to have thus been blasted to smithereens.
Regards,