The Four Pillars of Egyptian Chronology

[chsalvia]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Faramir

chsalvia:

Posting back to back post to get around the post length restriction is a violation of TWeb policy. If you would like a copy of the edited material, I would be happy to PM it to you.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

I wanted to briefly mention three things:

1) Here is something the Smithsonian is reported to have said:

"...On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work."

taken from: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...9156/ssotb.htm

Just in case the above link goes dead here is the same information at another site:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/n...s/0403lead.asp


2) It should be recognized that many of the most heated of the controversies in Bible archaelogy has to do with dating. I personally, think this is now the weakest link in archaeology.

Here is a website that discussing archaeological dating:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defd...3/r&r9311a.htm

3) Here is a site which gives a overview of Bible archaeology for those who feel they could benefit from an introduction to the subject:

http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=185

Sincerely,

Ken

[chsalvia]

...continued from post #15

The Inhapi cache: There is a burial cache originally prepared for Queen Inhapi.

Yes, I’ve heard this before. In fact, this is the first argument I ever read from Rohl, back when you first told me about him. This is probably Rohl’s best argument, since it requires an ad hoc explanation in order to deal with it directly. Now, I’m not going to bother speculating on what could have happened here. But let me just say that this bit of evidence is not strong enough to overturn the evidence against Rohl, e.g. Assyrian chronology and other matters. In those cases, it is Rohl who has to do quite a bit of ad hoc explaining. So yes, I admit, in this case, the CC takes a hit.

But – this evidence can be refuted indirectly. There is another reason to believe that Siamun could not have been contemporary with Sheshonk I. The high priest of Amon during the reign of Siamun was named Paynozem, son of Menkheperre, but the high priest of Amon during the reign of Sheshonk I was Iuput, Sheshonk’s own son. Sheshonk installed Iuput as high priest as soon as he gained the throne. So obviously, Sheshonk I was not contemporaneous with Siamun, unless you postulate that both Paynozem and Iuput were high priest of Amun at the same time – an unprecedented phenomenon with no support.

Thus, Rohl has to invent an ad hoc co-priesthood in order to explain this. If supporters of the CC need to resort to an ad hoc explanation to deal with the anomalous burial in the tomb of Inhapi, Rohl has to resort to an ad hoc explanation to deal with the fact that the high priests under Siamun and Sheshonk were different people.

The Royal Tombs of San: In summary, there were a bunch of tombs excavated. The construction of tombs I and III indicated that tomb III must have been built after I. However, tomb I was the tomb of Osorkon II, whereas tomb III was the tomb of Psusennes I. Yet in the CC, Osorkon II died 141 years after Psusennes I. The evidence from these tombs would tend to suggest that Osorkon II and Psusennes were near contemporaries.

This is too vague for me to refute. I don’t know why the construction indicated that tomb III must have been built after tomb I, so there’s nothing I can say to this. And I’d need to know if there are arguments against this by someone qualified to make such a judgment about tomb structure.

That's fair enough - most Egyptologists have abandoned this method of dating too. But the fact is that until fairly recently, the Sothic dating system was a major lynchpin in Egyptian chronology. Egyptologists stopped using it when people like James and Rohl started to point out the flaws in it.

Well wait a second…I never said the Sothic dating system was flawed. I said it was unnecessary. Rohl or James have apparently given you the wrong impression. Mainstream Egyptologists do not say the Sothic dating system is flawed, they say it is no longer needed. There is so much documentary evidence available, that the Egyptian chronology can be maintained by synchronisms with Assyria and Babylon alone. Since that is a lot more obvious and intuitive than the Sothic method, the Sothic method is no longer needed. However, all major recently published works on Egyptian history still refer to this method as valid.

But don't you consider it just a little bit suspicious that, despite the fact that this Sothic date is no longer used to date the chronology (indeed, some go as far to say that the Ebers papyrus has nothing to do with Sothis anyway), it still happens to fit the current chronology?

No. The Sothic dating system is no longer as heavily used because it is unnecessary, not because it is flawed.

At the very least, it makes the chronology suspicious in my view. Granted, it might just be a coincidence - but it seems more that it came to be that way by design - ie, by Egyptologists trying to make it fit.

Yes, Jezz. Obviously, there is a huge international conspiracy of Egyptologists who are so obsessed with Sothic dating, that they can’t bear to let it go…

Or maybe its because both the Sothic system and the system based on the Mesopotamian synchronisms reflect actual reality. Again, you don’t seem to appreciate how easy it is to arrive at any date using the Assyrian lists. As I explained in post#5, you can start at Ashurbanipal’s fourth regnal year of 664 B.C., or Ashur-dan’s tenth regnal year of 763 B.C. and just count backwards using the lengths of reigns given for each king. This gets certain key synchronisms with Egypt, such as Akhenaten and Ashur-Uballit, who reigned ca. 1350 B.C. This palpable, clear evidence trumps all of your vague, questionable arguments about anomalies in the Third Intermediate Period.

And what exactly do you mean by saying the Egyptologists are trying to “make it fit”? What are they doing, sneaking into the British museum at night and editing the Assyrian king lists with a chisel?

Hmm, the list that Rohl works from does not have Mittani or Assyria on it. Do you have a primary source for that?

Well, Rohl probably doesn’t mention it because it’s not in the list proper. It’s mentioned in the introduction. I do have a copy of the text. It’s from a relief at Karnak. Here:

It begins with a long, elaborate laudatory passage, containing the following:

I made thy boundaries as far as thou desiredst; I made the Southerners come in obeisance to thee, and the Northerners to the greatness of thy fame. Thou hast made a great slaughter among them without number, falling in their valleys, being multitudes, annihilated and perishing afterward, like those who have never been born. All the countries that came, thy majesty has destroyed them in the space of a moment. I have trampled for thee them that rebelled against thee, overthrowing for thee the Asiatics of the army of Mitanni. I have humbled them beneath thy feet. I am thy father, the lord of gods, Amon-Re, lord of Thebes, sole leader, whose remnant escapes not, that I may cause thy valor to be remembered in the future through all eternity.

He then gives a list of the towns he conquered, which were: Adummim, Aijalon, Assyria, Aruna, Arzawa, Beth-Anath, Beth-Horon, Beth-Olam, Beth-Shan, Beth-Tappuah, Emeq, Gibeon, Ham, “Hand of the King”, Hapharaim, Hatti, Jordan, Kadesh, Mahanaim, Megiddo, Migdol, Naharin, Negeb, Rabbah, Raphia, Rehob, Shankhar, Shasu, Shunem, Socho, Taanach, Tunip, and Yehem.

The problem is worse than just missing Jerusalem from the itinerary. According to 2 Chronicles, Rehoboam fortified 15 cities, which Shishak took. Of these cities, only Aijalon is mentioned in Shoshenq's itinerary.

The fact that Aijalon is mentioned is pretty good evidence for an identification with Sheshonq. Silence is never a good argument in a case like this.

But remember that we need to find the best possible answer here. Ramses II took none of the towns fortified by Rehoboam either, not even Aijalon. (ANET, pg 242, 255-256) The only towns in Southern Palestine that Ramses II is said to have conquered are Ashkelon, Jerusalem and Geba. And Ramses III didn’t conquer any of these places either. So all the geographical arguments you use for Sheshonq could also be applied to Ramses II or III. For Ramses II we’re missing Aijalon, for Sheshonq we’re missing Jerusalem. There are always anomalies, but what is the best answer? Clearly, Sheshonq makes more sense holistically.

Now, the principle argument you offered against this identification was that Sheshonq did not invade Judah, and that the phrase “Kingdom of Judah” was a mistranslation for “Monument/Hand of the King.” However, as you can see from the list, Sheshonq did invade Judah, and if you look on a Bible map you can see that Socho and Aijalon are about fifteen to twenty miles away from Jerusalem. Do you really think then, that Sheshonq would miss Jerusalem? Here we have a Pharaoh with a remarkably close linguistic identification, who also invaded Judah and definitely came within the vicinity of Jerusalem. On what basis exactly are you questioning the Shishak/Sheshonq identification now? Because his stele doesn’t explicitly mention Jerusalem? Yes, that is a bit anomalous, but everything else is so close that we are justified in dismissing this as a scribal omission. And if we take the passage in 2 Chronicles seriously, we realize that many cities went unmentioned, regardless of whether the invader was Sheshonq or Ramses.

Sheshonq claims to have conquered a nation that no longer existed, and you think this was propaganda? Surely your first explanation is much more likely - ie, that "Mittani" was being used in a regional way?

It doesn’t really matter I guess, but I wouldn’t say the first explanation is surely more likely. It’s possible, I suppose. If so, there are no other instances of Mitanni being used like this that I know of. But the passage is so propagandistic, and sounds so much like Sheshonq is trying to emulate his predecessors by saying that Amon-Re has humbled for him the traditional enemies, i.e. the Asiatics, the “Nine Bows”, the Nubians, etc. Perhaps, by that time, the old kingdom of Mitanni, which had collapsed during the reign of Akhenaton, was considered a sort of “traditional” enemy. But I suppose it doesn’t really matter much for the purposes of our discussion.

Thus, although the lack of reference to Jerusalem is admittedly anomalous, we can be sure Shishak is Sheshonq I because he is the only Pharaoh that could historically fit into this situation

And this is the circular reasoning that you said you weren't going to do...

No, it’s not circular, because I explained why Sheshonq is the only possible historical match. Ramses II cannot be Shishak, because Ramses II was a contemporary of Sennacherib I, as we can infer from the Assyrian King lists, so Ramses II must have ruled ca. 1270 B.C. Ramses III could not have been more than a hundred years after Ramses II, so that disqualifies him. Sheshonq I is the only Pharaoh who has the linguistic and political qualifications to be identified as the invading Shishak.

EDIT: See also below, post #20

If that were Sheshonq's purpose for invading, then it would seem odd that he apparently avoided Judah for the most part.

What are you talking about? How do you know he “avoided” Judah for the most part? He was in Socoh and Aijalon, right in the heart of Judah, less than 20 miles from Jerusalem. Besides, I could just say Ramses II “avoided” Judah for the most part, based on the historical evidence, being that only 2 Judean cities, and one Philistine city is mentioned in his campaigns.

You’ve been tricked by Rohl into believing that there is some sort of obvious, compelling evidence against Sheshonq here. But just look at the actual campaigns of Sheshonq I, and compare them with Ramses II or III. I would say Ramses III is instantly disqualified, since the only town in Judah he is reported to have invaded is Beth-Dagon, which is along the coast and far from Jerusalem. And Ramses II and Sheshonq are about equal when it comes to the campaign evidence. Both invaded Judah. The campaign of Ramses II is a slightly closer match with Shishak, geographically speaking, since Ramses explicitly says he invaded Salem. But Sheshonq is a better match linguistically and more importantly, historically, so Sheshonq wins.

Sheshonq IV? Who was that? I thought Shoshenq III was the predecessor of Osorkon III? (Also note from above that it would seem Osorkon III actually the son of Talekoth I, not Sheshonq III.)

Well, there is some confusion. But Sheshonq III and Osorkon III were from different dynasties. Apparently, Sheshonq III is the last sole ruler of the 22nd dynasty. Osorkon III is the 4th king of the 23rd dynasty, and he is the successor of Sheshonq IV.

Dynasty 23 has Pedubast, Iuput, Sheshonq IV, Osorkon III, Takelot III, etc. where Shesonq IV and Osorkon III would be contemporary with Abibaal and Elibaal respectively.

But aside from that... that is an interesting alternative. In all the discussions I've read, they insisted that the Byblos synchronism was specifically with Shoshenq I and Osorkon I. I'm not sure why this insistence. On the surface of it, there seems no reason why your suggested synchronism couldn't apply. Maybe there was a prenomen that doesn't match.

Well, I’m not sure if the prenomens match, since I don’t have the Phoenician texts available to me, (getting the Phoenician texts is next to impossible, I can’t find a single publisher outside of some obscure journals where you can find them) but I’m pretty confident I’m correct about this.

True, it does not always seem to be the case. But it does seem to be the case for Sheshonq, and for Ramesses. For example, the full name of Ramesses II was:

Usermaatre-setepenre Ramessu-meryamun

The Hittites transliterated this as:

Washmuaria-shatepnaria Riamashesha-maiamana

Yet another painfully misleading argument by Rohl. It doesn’t matter how the Hittites translated Ramesses, because the Hittites spoke an Indo-European language that has absolutely no relation to any Semitic tongue.

You complain about the "arbitrary" adding of a letter - why does the Akkadian have a "u" on the end?

Well, actually, Akkadian doesn’t have any vowels. That “u” is just a guess by modern linguists as to what sort of sound the word would end with. Words that end in “u” are typical in Akkadian. Other than that, I have no idea how linguists determine that the word ends in a “u.” Suffice it to say, adding that “u” is not arbitrary.

Consider these two Akkadian translations of familiar Hebrew personages:

King Ahab = A-ha-ab-bu
King Hezekiah = Ha-za-qi-au

Regardless, I’m not sure what sort of point you’re trying to make. Words often change significantly from language to language, however there doesn’t seem to be any valid linguistic reason to add a “K” to Shisha, other than Rohl’s silly play on words theory, which to me is trumped by the fact that Sheshonk naturally has a “K” in it anyway.

According to this site, there are inscriptions of Ramesses III's name which was "susekh".

I don’t know if this is true or not. Certainly if it is I’m sure James would mention it. Did he, do you recall, in Centuries of Darkness?

Of course, of all the candidates for Shishak, Ramses III is the worst match. He is reported to have invaded only one town in Judah, and it was along the coast, far from Jerusalem. Furthermore, by the time of Rehoboam, who was a contemporary of Shishak, the Philistines had been totally subjugated by David. And yet, the Philistines launched a massive assault along with other Aegean peoples against Ramses III before they settled in the 5 cities in Palestine. Obviously, this must have been before David subjugated the 5 Philistine cities. So again, this doesn’t work historically, despite whatever linguistic identifications one might be able to find here for a name of Ramses III and Shishak.

You might be wrong about the name Nebuchadnezzar. JPH has in his article on Daniel:

Judges 3:8 speaks of a king called "Cushan-Rishathaim", which when translated is "twice-wicked Cushan" or perhaps "twice-wicked Cu[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]e". This sounds more like a name the Hebrews made up than a name that a king would have.

There are apparently some other Jewish legends where kings have had their names altered for polemical effect, but the book "Legends of the Jews" (by A Ginsberg) which my secondary source refers to went out of print in 1938, so I can't look at it for myself.

Hmm…okay. Point taken.

Yes, but given that the army also had Cu[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es and Sukkites, this point is neither here nor there. This point might carry more some force if the army was said to be predominantly Libyan.

Well, nobody knows who the Sukkites are. But the point is, the fact that a Libyan contingent exists at all is indicative that this was later than the time of Ramses II. The Libyan tribes did not begin to infiltrate Egypt until around the late 19th/20th dynasty, and they did not become a significant element until later. There are much more references to Libyan names in 20th/21st and 22nd dynasty texts than in 19th dynasty texts, when the army was predominantly Egyptian or Nubian. So this is more positive evidence for Sheshonq. Of course, it could also be evidence in favor of Ramses III I suppose.

Did he sack them? Or just pass through them/re-conquer them? I don't know, all Rohl talks about is the list of cities in Shoshenq's stele. I've seen one person suggest it could be a list of the cities who were paying tribute to him.

I don’t know either. Usually, such a list would indicate he sacked them – but who knows what exactly a “sacking” constitutes. Does that mean he shot a couple of arrows over the wall, or actually burned the city to the ground? I don’t know either.

Regardless, we have evidence at least that he laid siege to Megiddo. So, he does not seem to qualify as much of a savior. Certainly, the Assyrians are a much more likely candidate, since they often intervened to help those who were paying them tribute.

For example, we have a stele from Sam’al, a small country on eastern Turkey, in which the King, Kilamuwa, asked for help from the Assyrian King, against another invading country. Again, about 100 years later, another king from Sam’al, Barrakab, appeals to Tiglath-Pileser III for help against his enemies. And then, we have the example from 2 Kings, where King Ahaz asks for help from Assyria against Aram. So it seems very likely that the “savior” here was Assyria, and not Egypt.

Well, the Biblical silence here is at least some evidence here in favour of the CC, but not particularly strong evidence as it is a fairly weak silence. Apart from that, your assertion "it is historically more likely that the Assyrians were the "saviour" than the Egyptians" - well, this relies on the same-old begged question in context. If the revised chronology is correct, then an Egyptian saviour such as Shoshenq become historically just as plausible as an Assyrian one.

This isn’t a begged question. Regardless of chronology, the Assyrians were known for constantly meddling in Levantine affairs, and for coming to the aid of their vassals. The Pharaohs of the Third Intermediate Period, who only sporadically marauded through Palestine for booty, are not a good match for this “savior.” This is true whether we use the CC or Rohl’s chronology.

Anyway, in conclusion, the questionable, vague arguments that Rohl offers about certain anomalies in the TIP are nothing compared to the blatantly obvious problems inherent with his chronology. He needs to propose a redating for the Assyrian chronology, which rests independently of Egypt. And of course, to do this, he’d need to arbitrarily assume various coregencies in order to explain away the Assyrian king lists, the Babylonian synchronisms, etc. In my post above, post #5, I meticulously explained how easy it is to use these lists to arrive at a date for any Assyrian King, and demonstrated some useful synchronisms. And of course, these lists themselves are all synchronized with Babylonian Kings, in the “Synchronistic Chronicle”, providing us with further points of contact with Egypt.

And other than that, there’s a whole host of general historical problems involving the Israelites, the Philistines, the Hittites, and the Greeks, which hopefully I'll get to later.

[WebToaster]

"If I lack the ability to understand this point..."? To what do I owe this fine display of condescension? You never thought of simply pointing out my error? When I corrected you on your statement that the Roman Church created the Biblical canon, did I display such condescension towards you? If so, I am sorry.

You're right, the "lack the ability" comment was condescending and I shouldn't have made it, sorry about that. Plus it had little (or no) relevance to the subject of an otherwise excellent thread, as does this post... Hmmm, but I wanted to apologize nontheless in the same context.

[chsalvia]

Thus, although the lack of reference to Jerusalem is admittedly anomalous, we can be sure Shishak is Sheshonq I because he is the only Pharaoh that could historically fit into this situation.

I wanted to add another thing which occurred to me. I mentioned before how Sheshonq I is the only Pharaoh who can fit in historically with Shishak. Besides the synchronism with Assyria, there is another important historical reason to consider. If Shishak is Ramses II, that means that Seti I, the predecessor of Ramses II, was a contemporary of Solomon. But Seti I also invaded Palestine, and according to his campaign accounts, he attacked Beth-Anath, a city in Naphtali, Beth-Shan, a city in Manasseh, and Megiddo. Unlike the stele of Sheshonq, which is merely a list, the campaign of Seti I makes clear that he attacked these cities, which were considered rebellious.

But according to the Old Testament, all of these places were under the control of Solomon.

1 Kings 4:1-7

So King Solomon ruled over all Israel. And these were his chief officials…(snip)… Solomon also had twelve district governors over all Israel, who supplied provisions for the king and the royal household…(snip)… Baana son of Ahilud-in Taanach and Megiddo, and in all of Beth Shan next to Zarethan below Jezreel, from Beth Shan to Abel Meholah across to Jokmeam

Apparently, Solomon’s reign wasn’t as peaceful as the Bible proclaims, being that Seti I sacked quite a few cities in Solomon’s territory, because they rebelled against Egypt. (Implying, of course, that Egypt controlled them in the first place, which is not the impression we get from the Old Testament's description of Solomon's independent reign.)

The Book of Kings says:

1 Kings 4:24-25

For he ruled over all the kingdoms west of the River, from Tiphsah to Gaza, and had peace on all sides. During Solomon's lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree.

But according to the campaign of Seti I, this was not so. Seti I invaded Palestine, and destroyed cities that were rebellious:

Thereupon his majesty sent the first army of Amon, named “Mighty of Bows”, to the town of Hamath, the first army of the Re, named “Plentiful of Valor,” to the town of Beth-Shan, and the first army of Seth, named “Strong of Bows”, to the town of Yanoam. When the space of a day had passed, they were overthrown to the glory of his majesty, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Men-maat Re; the son of Re: Seti Mer-ne-Ptah, given life.

There are also various reliefs depicting Seti I marching past Migdol, into Palestine.

Not only that, according to the Bible, Solomon actually married a daughter of the Pharaoh (1 Kings 3:1), which under Rohl’s chronology would have been the daughter of Seti I. Evidently, that marriage didn’t work out so well. Or maybe it’s just that Rohl’s chronology doesn’t work out so well.

So again, that is another reason why Sheshonq I is the only Pharaoh who fits historically.

[Bubbahotep]

Just a quick note to the discussion, specifically regarding the Egyptian tomb DB320 (the kai of Inhapi). It would appear that this is simply a case of misperception on the part of Egyptologists. The date of the removal of the royal mummies from the tomb of Seti I to the kai of Inhapi took place just three days before the burial of Pinudjem II, high priest of Amun. The removal date was 17th Peret IV in the year 10 of Siamunof the 21st dynasty, while they were subsequently brought to the "kai" (some term referring to a "high place") of Queen Inhapi, on 20th Peret IV. This is the same date inscribed upon the entrance to DB320 where these royal mummies were ultimately found. Scholars have naturally assumed that DB320 is the kai of Inhapi but kai is not a normal term for tomb and the tomb, DB320, is known to not belong originally to Inhapi (whose mummy was not found deepest inside) but to Pinudjem II. It would thus appear entirely possible and probable that the kai of Inhapi is NOT DB320 and that the royal mummies were moved at some later date from the kai to DB320.

Information obtained from: http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Inhapi.html

[kendemyer]

TO: All

IF memory serves, Jezz said in a private email to me that a certain scholar was being far dogmatic regarding his views on Egyptian chronology based on the fact that more evidence is needed to fully resolve the issue of Eygyptian chronology as far as Jezz is concerned.

I wish to offer the following website which lends support to Jezz's view regarding what he stated in his email to me and it comes from Wikipedia and it is an overview of the various scholarly opinion regarding Egyptian chronology: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28211

Sincerely,

Ken

[Bubbahotep]

Ken,

your favorite website of the moment is most certainly not an "overview of the various scholarly opinion regarding Egyptian chronology". It is a biased, amateur piece written by a Rohl adherent. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information as it allows submissions/revisions by readers. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you would be much better off reading the actual source material (check out what chsalvia has already posted here) and forming an informed opinion; if you're interested in truth, that is, and not just finding support for a pet hypothesis.

[chsalvia]

Yes Kendenmeyer, you really need to be more critical here. The Internet is not usually a good source for information like this. If you really want to get a feel for what's going on in the field of Egyptology, you need to look through recently published articles and books by leading Egyptologists, such as Ian Shaw, Kathryn Bard, Alan Lloyd, John Taylor, Betsy Bryan, Beatrix Midant-Reynes, Jaromir Malek, and others. John Taylor specifically does a lot of work on the Third Intermediate Period.

Rohl and his supporters try to give the impression that Egyptologists are a bunch of idiots, blindly following Kitchen, and lazily and dogmatically adhering to the conventional chronology. In reality, Egyptology is a lively and productive field, with new articles about the latest Egyptological issues being published monthly in journals like BASOR and KMT. Suffice it to say, I don't think Rohl has ever been reviewed or discussed in any of the relevant literature, nor is he taken very seriously by anyone except Kitchen. And like all fringe theorists, such as Holocaust deniers or people who claim the moon-landing was hoaxed, Rohl and his supporters claim that the establishment doesn't want to admit the real truth which Rohl has exposed. But in reality, the reason nobody takes Rohl seriously is because his chronology just doesn't make any historical sense. It's the same reason nobody took Velikovsky seriously.

[chsalvia]

Just a quick note:

In post #15, I wrote:

So all of these “kings” were appointed as governors and regents by Esarhaddon, when he invaded Egypt. But when Esarhaddon first invaded Egypt the only native king was Taharqo! (Well, not really native – he was Ethiopian, but you understand.) So of course there was going to be around 20 kings when Ashurbanipal invaded. His own son appointed these kings! And these were not Pharaohs, as in legitimate Pharaohs of ruling dynasties – they were Assyrian-appointed governors.

Esarhaddon was the father of Ashur-banipal. I accidentally wrote “his own son” here for some reason, rather than “his own father.”

[kendemyer]

To: chsalvia and Bubbahotep

I address your previous posts at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=28211:

TO: ALL

Next, I am not wedded to any extremely specific Egyptian chronology at this point but given the Bible's track record so far in terms of definitive archeological finds and given its prophecies (see: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=184) and teachings I am wedded to the Bible being the Word of God.

The reason I am not wedded to any extremely specific chronology is because of some of the things the Wikipedia article said but more importantly I cite the following:

I cite the eminent Professor Edwin Yamauchi regarding archeology and ancient historians:

"Historians of antiquity in using the archeological evidence have very often failed to realize how slight is the evidence at our disposal. It would not be exaggerating to point out that what we have is but one fraction of a second fraction of a third fraction of a fourth fraction of a fifth fraction of the possible evidence" (New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh Mcdowell, 1999, page 92).

If you wish to know more about the professor or wish to contact him here is some information below:

Edwin M. Yamauchi, professor
Ph.D. (1964) Brandeis University
yamauce@muohio.edu
274 Upham Hall; 513-529-5141

Ancient History, Biblical Archaeology, Early
Church History

The field in ancient history flourishes under the
direction of Edwin M. Yamauchi, who teaches
courses in ancient Near Eastern (Mesopotamian
and Egyptian), Greek and Roman history, and
early Christianity. He has authored and edited
numerous books including Greece and Babylon,
Persia and the Bible, The Archaeology of New
Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor, Harper's
World of the New Testament, Gnostic Ethics and
Mandaean Origins, and Pre-Christian Gnosticism.
A co-edited work, Peoples of the Old Testament
World, received a prize from the Biblical
Archaeological Society. He has recently edited
Africa and Africans in Antiquity. His writings have
been translated into a dozen languages.

taken from: http://www.units.muohio.edu/history...culty21-26.html

ADDTIONAL COMMENTARY

I was under the mistaken impression that Dr. Yamauchi was still teaching in Ohio at Miami University in Oxford, OH but I guess he has moved. I also understand that the Professor has taught at Rutgers and was awarded many fellowships in his lifetime and if memory serves he is fairly fluent in many languages (see: The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel).

I also cite:

LIMITATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGY

A website declares:

"While archaeology is of great help to our understanding the Bible, the biblical evidence in the text must be given priority over the archaeological evidence from the field. The reason for this is the inherent limitations of archaeology. The primary limitation of archaeology is the extremely fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence. Only a fraction of what is made or what is written survives. Most of the great Near Eastern archives were destroyed in antiquity through wars, looters, natural disasters or the ravages of time. To this we must add the limitation that less than 2% of sites in Israel have been excavated and hundreds more will never be excavated due to lack of access or resources and destruction through building projects, military maneuvers, and pillaging by Bedouins. Even when this small percentage of sites are excavated, only a fraction of the site is actually examined, and then only a percentage of what is excavated is ever published. Of the 500,000 cuneiform texts that are known to have been discovered over the past 100 years, only 10% have ever been published."

(this was taken from: http://www.imja.com/Archeology.html )

Now I realize that in regards to most ancient lands the amount of archeological material in Egypt is better than most areas. However, I still do not believe that vehement statements regarding entire chronologies are warranted.

ARCHEOLOGICAL DATING COMPOUNDS THE ISSUE OF THE SCARCITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL DATA

Next the data has to be interpreted which is not always easy. I cite the following webpage regarding archeological dating:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defd...3/r&r9311a.htm



Also this has to be kept in mind:

Academics/archeologists/scientists are often resistent to change even in the face of contracting data.

I know that in human endeavors like /archeology/science that human beings and communities are slow to change despite good evidence that they should do so. It will be interesting to see what the next 50 years, Lord willing, will bring to Egyptology."

I think this will clarify things somewhat:


"In the classic work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn 1962), Thomas S. Kuhn describes scientific research as "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education." He points out that in some cases research results can change the basic tenets of current scientific practice, a process known as "paradigm shift," but that scientists are usually very reluctant to change their ideas about how the universe works."

taken from: http://members.verizon.net/~vze3fs8i/air/paradigm.html

I also want to clarify things a little more by citing the following:

"A epistemological paradigm shift was called a scientific revolution by epistemologist Thomas Kuhn.

A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. Once new discoveries are made that cannot be reconciled with a current paradigm and these results are independently confirmed by other scientists, then the scientific community is forced to create a new paradigm in line with the evidence. This is a key difference between science (and generally to science and other belief systems); adherents of the scientific method are generally forced to change their beliefs when new facts and compelling logic are presented.

A common misinterpretation of Kuhnian paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science is a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic....or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different."

taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradig...aradigm_shifts

[chsalvia]

Kendemeyer, please stop flooding this thread with quotes from wikipedia and Christian apologetics websites. You've posted this same information about three times now in various different threads. Jezz started this thread to discuss the Revised Chronology versus the Conventional Chronology. If you have any arguments in favor of either please post them. Your concerns about archeology in general can be addressed in the other threads. Thanks.

[chsalvia]

Since it came up elsewhere, I thought I’d make it clear that appealing to authority as a means of refuting Rohl is not valid. However, it certainly is valid for me to claim that Rohl’s claims should be treated with caution. Some of his arguments are very misleading.

For example, Rohl needs to demonstrate that the Third Intermediate Period had quite a few more coregencies than the Conventional Chronology allows. In order to provide some evidence that the TIP was severely politically fragmented, he refers to Ashurbanipal’s annals which say that there were at least 20 kings ruling in Egypt at the same time when Ashurbanipal invaded. Or at least, this seems to be his argument as presented by Jezz in post #12.

This seems like a valid argument, especially if you aren’t very well informed about the history of this period. But if you learn the history of this period, and read the source material, you realize Rohl’s argument is quite deceptive.

As I explained in post #15, Ashurbanipal’s father, Esarhaddon, had already conquered Egypt before Ashurbanipal came to the throne. Now, we know from Esarhaddon’s annals, which I cited in post 15, that when Esarhaddon first came to Egypt, there was only one Pharaoh – Pharaoh Taharqo. (The Biblical Tirhakah.) Esarhaddon overthrew him, and appointed various petty kings or governors to rule over Egypt, under the sovereignty of Assyria. So later, when Esarhaddon’s son and successor, Ashurbanipal, invaded Egypt (to quash a rebellion), there would naturally have been around 20 kings, because Esarhaddon appointed them. But Rohl argues as if these 20 kings were from separate native dynasties, not Assyrian appointed governors. The Assyrian records make it quite clear that when Esarhaddon first invaded, there was only one Pharaoh. And ironically enough, the passage in Ashurbanipal’s annals which lists all of these 20 kings (which I cited in post 15) makes it clear that these were Assyrian appointed governors, and not native Egyptian Pharaohs.

Now, I simply cannot believe that Rohl is unaware of this. He must have read through Ashurbanipal’s annals in order to even have made the argument in the first place. Therefore, he is intentionally being deceptive – unless, of course, I am misunderstanding Jezz’s post, and Rohl did not actually refer to Ashurbanipal’s annals for the purpose of demonstrating severe political fragmentation in Egypt during the TIP.

Because of arguments like this, I would urge everyone to thoroughly investigate any of Rohl’s arguments before taking them at face value. It is unfortunate that people who are not very knowledgeable about this period of history will be persuaded by arguments like this.

[kendemyer]

TO: Chsalvia

I wish to make no more comments regarding the general scarcity of archaeological data in many cases or the Wikipedia article which cites the ideas of Rohl.

Also, I do not think I flooded this post with lots of irrelevant matters. I think my comments regarding paradigm changes in various disciplines was particularly relevant. I often laugh when I see the conventional consensus in fields zealously defended like it was handed down from God to his elect experts. Now I do recognize the benefits of scholarly communities and of serious study. I think at the same time that men's pride and desire to be in the "in crowd" often impede the process of man's search for knowledge.

I am glad, however, that you are Jezz are having a discussion on this matter. I would remind you though that you certainly do not own TWEB. I would also remind you that Jezz did not indicate any preference that the dialogue mainly be with you. If you have any complaints then please direct them to the moderator.

I do agree with you, however, that at this point should I wish to make any further comments they should very specifically focused to Rohl versus the Conventional Chronology.

Sincerely,

Ken

[chsalvia]

I would remind you though that you certainly do not own TWEB. I would also remind you that Jezz did not indicate any preference that the dialogue mainly be with you. If you have any complaints then please direct them to the moderator.

Yes, you're right. I just found it interruptive when you posted the same material in this thread which you had already posted in 3 other threads, especially since it was only loosely related to the topic at hand and very lengthy. But I should have left it up to Jezz to decide if it was really interruptive.

I do agree with you, however, that at this point should I wish to make any further comments they should very specifically focused to Rohl versus the Conventional Chronology.

Okay, good. And I hope I didn't offend you.