Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Hello Peter,

I asked you various questions. 

> Well, to avoid going into details, 

Please do go into details.  I am not asking for a debate.  I asked for names 
of 
people and references of articles on the subject I can read.  And regarding 
the
issue of dubiousness, I asked you twice in this last post.  Even serious 
scholars can be wrong, especially when they offer opinions on areas not their
expertise.  That is why I insist always on having at least one or two experts 
in
the field to offer their opinions.  In the case of "minimalism" it might be 
linguists who explain the linguistic evidence.  In this case, it must be
Egyptologists.  Now, besides the issue of why the comparison was "dubious"
which you have still not explained, I also ask specifically:

> You are wrong. See below. I accept that the biblical evidence is
> somewhat uncertain, but it is far better and more reliable than anything
> which has been found in Egypt. Egyptologists recognise that the biblical
> dates are better than theirs - even while some biblical scholars try to
> rubbish their own data.

Please back up the last sentence of your paragraph and name me two 
prominent Egyptologists who "recognize" this, and the particular reference
where they do so.

> >Could you provide me with a reference to a discussion of "the little good
> >evidence from Egypt for the date of Shoshenq" and why it is hard to
> >reconcile with the mid (or late) 10th century?  Preferably, I would like to
> >read a discussion by a professional and respected Egyptologist on the
> >matter.

You skipped this.  I still want a reference.

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

So now provide the references to back up your assertion that my
original simple statement: that Solomon is usually dated to the
late tenth century based on the synchronism with Shoshenq ...

> >I don't see how my statement above about the state of scholarship
> >today, whereby Solomon is dated via Shoshenq, and not vice versa,
> >opens this can of worms.  That statement is true. ...
> 
> It is not.

Just provide me the reference.

> I didn't say that they should. The best data they have, indeed the only
> remotely reliable data, for dating Solomon is that in the books of Kings
> and Chronicles.

The only data for dating Solomon is in the book of Kings and Chronicles,
and the Bible.  Solomon is not mentioned in extra-Biblical sources.  We
wouldn't know he exists if it weren't for the Bible.  Solomon's not the
issue.  Shoshenq I is.  And Shoshenq I can be dated independently.  I
provided you a reference, and you said you were already aware of it.  So
I'm surprised you don't have a clear example of a reference that answers
it.

> >Good.  Are you aware of studies arguing a different position over the last
> >5 years? (A response by Manning? Some other Egyptologist?)
> 
> Yes, I am aware of other positions.

I am not telepathic, and this wasn't a yes or no question.   I also didn't ask
of other "positions" but of other studies published like this by similar
Egyptologists.  

> This is what I mean when I say above that you are wrong. The Egyptian
> dates given by Kitchen are based, in fact quite explicitly, on the date
> for Shishak derived by Thiele and Galil. The dates which are supposed to
> be based on Egyptian evidence are actually based on Thiele and Galil,
> with the doubtful Egyptian evidence being fitted in to harmonise with it.

Where does Kitchen explicitly say that the Egyptian dates are based on
the dates by Thiele and Galil?

> >... I would be interested to know if there are
> >similarly prominent Egyptologists that offer independent analyses from
> >that of Kitchen's. ...
> 
> Unlikely. Kitchen is recognised as the top world expert on this period.

Being a top world expert never prevented anyone else from mounting a serious
study challenging the claims and innovating the field.  In fact, from what I
gathered what makes Kitchen a top world expert is that he was able to write 
the 
Third Intermediate Period and no equal alternative has yet been published.

> >... Nevertheless, Kitchen's analysis is, on paper,
> >independent of the Bible, ...
> 
> No, explicitly it is not, in the very paper you cited. 

Where is it explicitly based on the Bible?

> There is no way
> to date Shoshenk at all accurately independent of the Bible. The Bible
> is the best historical data we have for this period and so should be
> used as the primary source.

That you believe so does not make it so.   Nor does it make Kitchen's 
method so.

> >Kitchen does take the possibilities of co-regencies into account.  See,
> >for example, his comments on page 6 where he deals with Shebitku
> >ruling as viceroy in Nubia under Shabako.  I'm surprised to hear that
> >Kitchen made so basic mistakes.  Didn't any prominent Egyptologist
> >point this out to him? ...
> >
> 
> Kitchen's method of summing the dates of 22nd dynasty monarchs to "a
> total of an irreducible 211 years", on p.8 of his paper, involves an
> assumption that there are no co-regencies during this period.   Several
> people pointed this out to him, and were laughed out of court for daring
> to question the world's top expert. Very like the discussions we have
> been having on this list recently.

You didn't tell me which prominent Egyptologist pointed this out to him.
I want to know who these several people are, because if they are not
Egyptologists, I am not very likely to be convinced.

> >... Also, Kitchen's article was published in 2002.
> >Which of the Pharaoh's reigns had to be revised afterwards due to new
> >inscriptions? ...
> 
> I don't say that this applies to any of the specific Pharaohs mentioned
> here. But there are certainly Egyptian rulers whose generally accepted
> reign lengths have been revised upwards because of the discovery of new
> inscriptions etc giving higher regnal dates.

Well, one could understand an implication in what you wrote that after 
Kitchen wrote his article, new inscriptions were discovered providing longer 
regnal dates making one of the two assumptions of his very doubtful.  This
would be a serious charge.  So I was asking for specifics.

> >... So, in sum, it appears to me that you are raising
> >non-specific objections to allow you to doubt Kitchen's method.
> >However, without specifics (which new inscriptions) and without a
> >reference to a similarly prominent Egyptologist who concurs that these
> >objections are valid, I don't know how valid these objections are.  I
> >note that Kitchen is here very terse, but apparently elsewhere (see
> >bibliography) explains the reasoning for using these specific numbers
> >as the reign lengths.  Here he just uses these figures to establish the
> >datings.
> 
> I don't think this is the place to enter a debate about this. There are
> other lists where they may be debated, e.g.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/.

And I'm glad you brought it up.  I don't subscribe to someone who appears
more interested in marketing than his own PhD.  I am also wary of
groups that are "read only if you subscribe."  Is there any single
prominent Egyptologist that has been convinced?  Take Israel Finkelstein, 
as an example.  Israel Finkelstein, while producing popular books, has 
also been very active in the academy and there have been important
archaeologists who have been convinced by his method.  From what I
gather, Rohl has been more active in the popular audience and has kept
neglecting signficant issues that came up in his theory.

> >Then let's take it to ANE.  I'm subscribed there, and so are some
> >Egyptologists who can point out clear falacies or direct us immediately
> >to a more current treatment of the subject.  Do you have any objection
> >of me asking about your claims on ANE?
> 
> I am not a member of ANE. But you are welcome to ask. From a quick look
> at the archives, there was quite a lot of discussion of such issues
> there in February 2003, see
> https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-February/thread.html.

Please refer to the following posts in that discussion:
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-February/006260.html
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-February/006296.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/abr/docs/temporalfugues.rtf
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-February/006217.html
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2003-February/006222.html

To sum up: I said a simple statement.  This statement was based on my
impression after reading several articles dealing with Shoshenq and
related to the Bible (by Finkelstein, Naaman, etc).  Evidently, Biblical
scholars date Solomon using this synchronism.  But it's not the other
way around, not anymore.  It may have been during Champollion's time,
but many things were different then.  Mathematics was not founded on
entirely sound premises originally and only during the past few centuries has
that been addressed.  Definitely, the same can be said for Egyptology
and Bible studies.  In response to your challenge, I gave you a specific
article by a prominent Egyptologist -- the top Egyptologist in the field, 
according to you.  But you have provided no names, and only a very closed
message group that hardly represents mainstream Egyptology and seems
to view Egyptology as a way to confirm the Bible as they interpret the 
Bible.  All I am interested in is one prominent Egyptologist whose purpose
is to study Egypt and not Bible confirmation, and will concur with you that 
Kitchen's method is based on the Bible, has the shortcomings you
mentioned, and is not independent of the Bible.  Really, you don't have to
respond to most of what I wrote.  If you could instead provide a simple 
reference to an article by a prominent Egyptologist to that effect, that 
would 
be much more appreciated.

Yitzhak Sapir