Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 19/09/2005 04:32, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

> On 9/18/05, Peter Kirk wrote:
>  
>
> > Indeed to the last point. But in fact your argument is back to front. It
> > was the dating of Solomon which came first, e.g. from Ussher and as more
> > recently refined e.g. by Thiele. And then Shoshenk I of Egypt was dated
> > from the synchronism with Solomon, on the dubious assumption that he is
> > the "Shishak" of 1 Kings 14:25. There is little good evidence from Egypt
> > for the date of Shoshenk I, and what there is is hard to reconcile with
> > the mid 10th century.
> >
> >    
>
> I was afraid of this... ...

Well, you opened this can of worms, and you can't shut it again that easily.

> ...  I cannot but point you to Kitchen's article at - 
> http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/docs/volume2%20No2%20Dec2002/Kitchen%20paper.pdf
> [Kitchen, Kenneth A., "Ancient Egyptian Chronology for Aegeanists", 
> Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 2.2 (2002)]
>  

I am aware of this paper.

> In this article, he:
> 1) mentions Galil's work as an independent and different system than Thiele.  
> Thiele's analysis was important, but it's not the only way to analyze the
> data, and not the only "solution."
>  

I never suggested that it was. It is one of the most widely respected 
modern chronologies. I note that "G. Galil (1996) came to precisely the 
same result as did Thiele, in reaching 930 BC for the death of Solomon". 
So you are manufacturing a disagreement here.

> 2) independently works out in p. 8 that Shoshenq I lived between 945-939 BCE 
> through 924-918 BCE, in order to prove, independent of the Bible, that Shoshenq 
> I and Shishak of the Bible were contemporaries, as far as the Bible is
> concerned.
> That it works out with the Bible is nice, but it's not necessary for
> any Egyptologist.
>  

Nevertheless, Shoshenk I was dated to approximately these dates long 
before Kitchen worked out his chronology, long before the data Kitchen 
relies on had been discovered. That was my main point, that this 
biblical dating is primary, and afterwards Kitchen came along and found 
support for it from Egypt.

Nevertheless, Kitchen's method is highly suspect. Throughout this 
article he relies on two highly dubious assumptions: 1) there are no 
co-regencies or parallel dynasties during this period, apart from ones 
for which we have specific evidence; 2) the length of each ruler's reign 
is given by the highest regnal year on an attested surviving inscription 
or document. Both of these assumptions are in fact demonstrably 
doubtful, certainly for this poorly documented period - for there are 
known co-regencies and parallel dynasties and so there are likely to be 
unknown ones; and some rulers' reign lengths have had to be revised 
upwards because of new inscriptions discovered indicating longer reigns. 
Now it might be that these factors cancel out so that Shishak is indeed 
Shoshenk I. Or it might be that one dominates the other so that Shishak 
is an earlier or later ruler in the Egyptian succession.

> 3) "Shishak" of 1 Kings is actually "$w$q" in the Ktiv and if one considers 
> that
> his successor several generations later is spelled out in Akkadian as
> "shushinqu"
> one gets that "$$nq" of Egypt, "$u$inqu" of Akkadian, and "$w$q" of Hebrew 
> make
> a best fit at $o$enqu or $o$inqu, where the n drops in Hebrew as it
> does in other
> examples.  See Kitchen's comments in the above, p. 7.
>  

Arguments from similarity of name are notoriously uncertain, especially 
since the same name is reused many times. I note that there is no clear 
record of the Egyptian vowels.

> Generally, if you wish to continue arguing this I would suggest taking it up 
> on
> the ANE list or the Egyptology list.  There is simply no sufficiently 
> qualified
> experts on this list to answer questions of this sort.  There is much
> misinformation on these issues and these discussions seem to wind on with
> no end unfortunately, but at least, it doesn't have to wind on with no
> end on this
> list.
>  

In that case, let's drop the matter. But I will not drop it when you 
have added to the misinformation and then asked for the subject to be 
dropped.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.2/105 - Release Date: 19/09/2005