Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Raamses

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Raamses
  • Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:24:58 +0100

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page