Peter_Kirk at sil.org
Mon Oct 2 14:54:15 EDT 2000
OK, you responded to the first part of Rolf's paragraph with a typical
quibble about terminology. But first you wrote: "I don't think it is
relevant to attempt to tie the notion of absolute chronology to astronomical
(or other observable) phenomena." And then you wrote nothing more about
astronomical chronology in your posting. I took this to mean that you were
declining to respond to Rolf's main point in this paragraph: "If you are
aware of older astronomical data that can be used for an absolute
chronology, I will like to know it."
From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 at mclink.it]
Sent: 02 October 2000 07:53
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: RE: The Flood
At 21.58 01/10/00 +0500, Peter Kirk wrote:
>As Ian declined to respond to the part of your posting retained below,
This is incorrect. I responded that the understanding of the terminology as
I understood it was not the generally used understanding.
All those working with chronology know the difference between an absolute
and a relative chronology. The oldest astronomical diary listed in A.J.
Sachs, H. Hunger,1988, "Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from
Babyulonia", is one from year 16 of Samashsumukin. Thus an *absolute*
chronology cannot go back longer than the 7th century BCE. If you are aware
of older astronomical data that can be used for an absolute chronology, I
will like to know it.
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk at sil.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
More information about the b-hebrew