[b-hebrew] Chronologies --was mishnaic Hebrew + Deborah

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 20:23:59 EST 2011


I’d love to invite you along in a time machine, there are so many questions
that would answer. One of them is the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew.
Another is its grammar. As a lexicographer, I found that many of the words
used in Tanakh are only uncertainly known, some unknown, it would be nice
to get a good handle on those terms. I had never before thought of using
such to verify other historical events.

While I was still in college, oh so many years ago, I came to the
realization that there were problems in correlating Biblical and secular
timelines. The creation and Noah’s flood were no-brainers though
recognizing that because of possible copyist errors and other errors, the
exact year may be in question. That also means that all of Egyptian history
needs to be post flood. But what made me first sit up and take notice was
the date and events surrounding the Exodus. There is no evidence, neither
from history nor from archeology, that any of the proposed pharaohs could
have been from the time of the Exodus. My first reaction was to propose
that the Exodus occurred during the Hyksos period, which is why it was not
recorded. That would already require redating. Since then I have learned of
archaeological evidence that tells about a large population of “Asiatics”,
slaves, who left the country so suddenly that they left behind much
personal belongings, including tools and even jewelry in a few cases, after
which Egypt was so weakened that an enemy was able to invade and take over
the country “without a fight”. To correlate that with the Exodus requires
centuries of redating on the Egyptian history. It fits the Biblical picture.

The reason that Biblical scholars can accept both the Manetho/Kitchen
derived dates and Biblical dates is because they have never thought through
and recognized the contradictions. Those who have critically considered
them must make a choice.

But when Assyrian records mentioning fighting the same Hittite foes in the
eighth century BC that the Egyptian histories mention in the 12th century
BC, something is seriously wrong. And that is just one example. There are
many more. The reason one does not hear about them is because we have
entered a post-modern age where truth takes back seat to reputations and
maintaining a story line.

In closing, Ugaritic linguistically is merely a late curiosity, the records
written in it have given us more details on the Canaanite practices
repeatedly condemned by the prophets.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:12 PM, James Spinti <jspinti at eisenbrauns.com>wrote:

> Karl,
> 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!
> James
> ________________________________
> 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

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list