[b-hebrew] Chronologies --was mishnaic Hebrew + Deborah
jspinti at eisenbrauns.com
Mon Nov 28 16:12:31 EST 2011
Yes, I looked at the links--both the ones you linked to this time and the ones from previous discussions. I still say that the alternatives to the currently accepted chronology are DOA, as you put it. I don't believe that requires the biblical chronology to be wrong; there are many biblical scholars who also accept the biblical record and reject alternative chronologies. The problems introduced by the alternatives are far more serious than any minor ones in the current model. Now, if you find a time machine and can go back, please invite me!
Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
On Nov 28, 2011, at 3:06 PM, K Randolph wrote:
> In this discussion I am mainly an observer pointing out observations made by others. Did you read the links I provided in an earlier posting? They pointed to evidence that the Hittite empire was first millennium BC, and that other dates have been misunderstood. I have seen evidence from two sources that hint that Mycenaean Greece was early first millennium BC with the Trojan War being about 800 BC give or take a century. Archeology clearly sets the Amarna Letters during the Divided Kingdom.
> For me, as one who accepts Bible as accurate history, the academic dating system based on Manetho and Kitchen is DOA because of its many contradictions to Biblical records. Archeology indicates that the Exodus occurred during the 13th dynasty, after which Egypt fell to invasion “without a battle” because its economy was in shambles and its army at the bottom of the Red Sea. Jericho fell shortly thereafter. Egypt was then under the heel of its invaders for over 400 years. There is no way that Shoshenq was the Shishaq mentioned in the Bible, don’t let the similarity in transliterated names fool you, but Thutmosis III fits perfectly. I can go on, but this should be enough to show that there are serious problems with “critical scholarship” which is why David Rohl (who I think is wrong, BTW) and other challengers to it have arisen.
> As far as Ugaritic is concerned, because it is dated to the Ramasid pharaohs, it is late. Has to be.
> Either Biblical chronology is correct, or “serious scholarship” chronology is correct, because they contradict both cannot be correct. Take your choice. I choose Biblical chronology as being correct. At least Biblical Chronology does not contradict archeology.
> Karl W. Randolph.
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:15 AM, James Spinti <jspinti at eisenbrauns.com> wrote:
> David Rohl is shunned because he is so clearly wrong. Serious scholarship will admit to that. Take a look at Assyrian Limmu lists and explain to me how you can compress 1000 years out of it…it can't be done. The current understanding of ancient chronology is tied to multiple strands--limmu lists, king lists, archaeological ties between sites, tablets in cuneiform from diverse locations, etc. You can't put Ugarit in the 1st millennium; it won't work. You can't put the Hittite empire there, either, to say nothing of Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece. And without them in the first millennium, you can't have Amarna there, either.
> Kitchen may be off here and there, but he is way closer to correct than any chronology that would have us believing that 1000 years can just up and decide to become 100 years…but we've been over this before in previous posts in previous years. Maybe some future archaeologist will see the redundant posts on B-Hebrew as evidence that the last 8 years are really just one year. Wouldn't that be interesting from a chronological point of view? :)
> James Spinti
> Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
> Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
> Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
> jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
> Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
> Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
> Fax: 574-269-6788
> On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:09 PM, K Randolph wrote:
> > George:
> > Is David Rohl shunned by the academic community because he is wrong, or
> > because he shook up the academic orthodoxy which is also clearly wrong?
> > I pointed to him not as an example of what is right, but as an example of
> > what happens to people who do not toe the line of academic orthodoxy. His
> > is not the only example, there are others in other fields, but fits this
> > context as he is a trained Egyptologist.
> > There should be no serious opposition to the statement that the dates as
> > proposed by Kitchen and his followers are clearly wrong, off by centuries.
> > Serious scholarship will admit to that. Archeology points out that they are
> > faulty. But will the herd mentality mentioned by Dr. Thomas Gold allow
> > researchers the freedom to find out the truth? Your answer seems to say
> > “No!”
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:05 AM, George Athas <George.Athas at moore.edu.au>wrote:
> >> Karl, you don't seem to have digested Yigal's earlier post. Appealing to
> >> David Rohl is not going to go anywhere in serious scholarship. It's time to
> >> join the actual league of critical scholarship, mate.
> >> GEORGE ATHAS
> >> Director of Postgraduate Studies,
> >> Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
> >> Sydney, Australia
More information about the b-hebrew