Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

Dear Yitzhak,

You made many valid points here. I am sorry if I have misrepresented you with 
this post. I enjoy your contributions to the debates.
One thing I will say though (as Peter has) is that if you are going to open 
the 
'can of worms', be prepared to defend your position (as you have done).

Yigal's reasoning on the 480 year period could be a valid one if it weren't 
for 
the fact that it didn't take into account a very important factor. The real 
architect 
of both the exodus and the temple was Yah himself, and so his purposing a 12 
* 40 
year interval may have some significance. The number forty is often used as a 
period 
of tribulation (e.g. the hebrews wandered 40 years instead of 40 days). Moses 
fasted 
for 40 days etc. The 12 * 40 years could have symbolised a payment of 40 
years paid to 
Yah for the error of each tribe (I don't know. I'm just hypothesising). 
Anyway, what is important to remember is the period was 480 years because Yah 
purposed 
it to be such not because some author thought it was a nice round number.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Yitzhak Sapir
Sent: Mon 9/19/2005 9:45 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Raamses
 
On 9/19/05, Read, James C wrote:

>  Am I to understand that you are a jew that does not believe in the
>  exodus? Yet give such honour to Redford? This really is remarkable!
> 
>  That would be like meeting a Christian that does not believe in
>  salvation yet gives full credence to the Da Vinci Code book.

The whole point is that Redford is an eminent Egyptologist and your
consulting him on matters of Egyptology is something I was not
expecting but am nonetheless glad you are.  I can't believe you are
seriously comparing Redford to the Da Vinci Code or to Dan Brown.  
And I did not state I do not believe in the Exodus: I stated that I don't 
think that there is a suitable historical background which can be applied 
to the Exodus.  That is simple recognition of the problems involved in
such a comparison, and it is better to face the facts than to make 
believe they don't exist.  Only by realizing the problems, can you solve 
the problems.

> Anyway, I didn't Raamses in the 10th century and your 
> misunderstanding on this is based on a (bad) interpretation of what I 
> wrote. 

Again, a 10th century date for the Exodus is simply a misrepresentation 
of scholarship.

> I was saying that both a date of tenth century for the exodus and the
> concurrent pharoah being RaamsesII were demonstrably false. 

You don't demonstrate falsehood by proving that "400 years of 
affliction" is necessary for the Exodus.  Whether or not there were
400 years is not what will prevent Ramesses from being the Pharaoh
of the Exodus.  As for your quoting Redford afterwards, it is like I
said, that today scholars would be wary of assigning any date to the
Exodus.  Besides, there's an inherent contradiction in quoting Redford 
to object to a 13th or 10th (???) century date while supporting a 16th 
century date.

> That you tie the two together  is your own perogative but not what I 
> intended you to understand.

Whether or not it is true, at least we both understand what you mean
now.

> Okay! Let me see if I understand your system. First you accuse 
> people of not being familiar with the arguments. 

Because you referred to the reconstruction all the way back to 
Joshua as a reasoning for your dismissal of Ramesses II.  But 
scholars who dated the Exodus to the 13th century were not 
oblivious of the 480 years to the building of the Temple.  They
had their own explanation.  And you can read Yigal's recent
message for a more complete elaboration.  I agree too, that the
13th century date is still very problematic.  But comparatively, at 
least it has on the face of it, good reasons to make it attractive,
enough that a verse speaking of 480 years to the building of the
Temple hardly "disproves" it.  That it is the best suggestion, and
yet still rather problematic, shows just how hard it is to find a
suitable historical background for the Exodus.

> Then when you see that they are and they have a strong position 
> against your opinion which has a bearing on the central linguistic 
> point you resort to accusing posters of discussing material unfit
> for the list.

What linguistic point does all this have bearing on?  What strong
position was voiced against my opinions?  I did not shy away from
any claim here and always was ready to back it up, and I'm still
ready to back up my discussions although the Egyptology-related
discussions, I think Egyptologists should be consulted on matters 
of Egyptology, and depending on their opinions, I might even become 
convinced!  (It happens).

> So basically,in order to have a discussion with you about 
> anything linguistic

What linguistic thing is at issue here?  Do you mean the issue
of cognate roots?  I really think we are in agreement on that particular
issue.  And hey, we have different opinions re: Bible, Exodus, and Jesus. 
So why must any of those figure into the discussion?

> we have to accept your priori non-linguistic assumptions

I don't require you to accept any assumptions.  In fact, the whole
point in the discussion with Karl, who does not accept that the 
cognate roots are "undeniably evolved" (as you said it) from
a parent "Proto-Semitic" root, is that the 14th century or whenever 
your particular favor finds that the Exodus is to be dated is not an 
issue in that entire discussion.  So I'm the one who was arguing for 
not basing the linguistic argument on non-linguistic assumptions, 
not the other way around.

> (which are usually baseless)

Which assumptions of mine are baseless?

> and desist from proving them incorrect lest we discuss something 
> non-linguistic even though it has a direct bearing on the original 
> discussion. 

First the problem is that I have "non-linguistic" assumptions.  Now the
problem is that you want to discuss a "non-linguistic something" that 
has "direct bearing" on the original discussion.  Well, what direct bearing 
does the Exodus' date in the 16th or 13th or 10th century have on cognate 
roots or whatever it is you think the linguistic issue happens to be?

> Yet by the same token you case most of your cases on non-linguistic
> 'evidence' 

What non-linguistic quote evidence quote do I "case most of my cases" on?

> and insist that it should be of higher value because it is extra-biblical 
> on the premise that extra-biblical sources are more honest and reliable 

That is a misrepresentation of my position.  I will not get into this, though.

> (a dubious assumption at best).

I'd ask why, but I don't want to get into that either.

Yitzhak Sapir
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk  Mon Sep 19 17:46:19 2005
Return-Path: <k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail59.messagelabs.com (mail59.messagelabs.com 
[195.245.230.83])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D3744C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:46:18 -0400 
(EDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-59.messagelabs.com!1127166377!84588567!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.4.15; banners=kingston.ac.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [141.241.2.22]
Received: (qmail 8606 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2005 21:46:17 -0000
Received: from kuexim3.king.ac.uk (141.241.2.22)
        by server-5.tower-59.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
        19 Sep 2005 21:46:17 -0000
Received: from [141.241.17.18] (helo=KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk)
        by kuexim3.king.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
        id 1EHTSq-0006gf-UC; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:46:17 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:46:16 +0100
Message-ID: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F874EEAB AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [b-hebrew] Chronology & time of the exodus
Thread-Index: AcW9Bjxl5kxMo0mCTL+Vx3qRBtMNFgAXGhEb
From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Chronology & time of the exodus
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:46:19 -0000


Soncino Books Of The Bible p20,21 says:

The guilt of the Northern Kingdom extended over a period of 390 
years(Seder Olam, Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Abarbanel, quoted by Malbim,
reckons the period of Samaria's guilt from the time when the schism 
took place under Rehoboam...until the fall of Jerusalem...The right 
indicates the south, i.e. the Kingdom of Judah which lay to the south 
or right...Judah's corruption lasted forty years beginning soon after 
Samaria's fall. According to Malbim, the time is reckoned from the 
thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah...when Jeremiah began his ministry.


And so the two periods 390 & 40 are not end to end but concurrent. Judah's 
began 40 years before the exile and the Northern Kingdom's started 390 
years before the exile.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Peter Kirk
Sent: Mon 9/19/2005 11:37 AM
To: Read, James C
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Chronology & time of the exodus
 
On 19/09/2005 08:49, Read, James C wrote:

>
> Ezekiel 4:1-7
>

Thank you. 390 years for the sin of Israel and 40 years for the sin of 
Judah? The total 430 years is close to the total period of the monarchy, 
from David c.1012 to the fall of Jerusalem c.586. But why this division? 
Or perhaps, as the NIV Study Bible suggests, the 390 years are from 
Solomon's unfaithfulness to the fall of Jerusalem, but then what are th 
40 years?

-- 
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

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From peterkirk AT qaya.org  Mon Sep 19 18:16:34 2005
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from pan.hu-pan.com (unknown [67.15.6.3])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144644C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:16:33 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from 213-162-124-237.peterk253.adsl.metronet.co.uk
        ([213.162.124.237] helo=[10.0.0.1])
        by pan.hu-pan.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52)
        id 1EHTw7-00048X-AO; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:16:32 +0100
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.344 [267.11.2]);
        Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:16:40 +0100
Message-ID: <432F38C8.5050204 AT qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:16:40 +0100
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com
References: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F874EEA1 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>       
<e6ea6c00050918071131cbcc3c AT mail.gmail.com>
        <432DF9F9.90609 AT qaya.org>       
<e6ea6c00050918203217141477 AT mail.gmail.com>     <432E91FA.4040801 AT qaya.org>   
  <e6ea6c0005091908206700f1d1 AT mail.gmail.com>     <432EE0D9.6070408 AT qaya.org>
        <e6ea6c000509191320297df679 AT mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e6ea6c000509191320297df679 AT mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
        please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pan.hu-pan.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ibiblio.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - qaya.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Raamses
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:16:34 -0000

On 19/09/2005 21:20, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

>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. ...
>

I answered this already in two ways:

1) The argument from similarity of names is very weak.

2) Kitchen's argument for the date of Sheshonk I depends on an
assumption that there were no co-regencies that we don't know about -
which is highly improbable given that we know about quite a few
co-regencies and we have very little information about most other
changes of ruler. It also depends on an assumption that each ruler died
in his last attested regnal year, which is also highly improbable.

If you want more reading on this, join the Yahoo group I referred you
to. But don't expect me to appeal to authorities.

>...
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
Kitchen, in the same article that you referred us to. He is only one,
admittedly, but he gives priority to the Thiele dates.

>>>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.
>
>
>
No one who disagrees with Kitchen is accorded any respect or
professional position within the self-perpetuating elite of
Egyptologists. So I can't give you any such reference. But there are
plenty of discussions at that Yahoo group.

>>>>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 ...
>
>

This is your assertion. And it is contradicted by the Kitchen reference
you cited which shows that the synchronism goes the other way. You will
also find that most Bible reference books refer to the work of Thiele,
Galil et al rather than to Egyptology when suggesting dates for Solomon.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>

No, it was your assertion first, so you provide me the reference - and
not of course the one which you provided already which disproves your
assertion.

>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
Shoshenk I cannot be dated independently. Even though Kitchen has
cobbled together a highly speculative method for doing so with lots of
logical holes in it, he explicitly depends on Thiele and Galil as his
primary evidence and uses the Egyptian dating as secondary support for this.

>>>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?
>
>
>
"... in reaching 930 BC for the death of Solomon and division of the
Hebrew monarchy. That date is a good one, like it or not. Which, in
turn, put the 5th year of Rehoboam and the Shishak campaign in 926/925
BC, so far as Hebrew chronology (solidly backed up by Assyrian) is
concerned. ... On this basis, Shoshenq I and Shishaq (926/925 BC) are
incontrovertible contemporaries, and their identity has to be accepted,
once and for all. ... So, 926/925 as a synchronism has to stand when all
the data are examined competently - and fairly." It is because of the
best fit to this Thiele/Galil date that Kitchen prefers to date Shoshenq
I to 945-924, and this gives the start date for his earlier chronology.

>>>... 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.
>
>

No one who opposes him would be accepted as an expert.

>
>
>>>... 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?
>
>
>
In the passage quoted above.

>>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.
>
>

Look at the other evidence - basically a random collection of stelae -
and it will be clear that the orderly set of data in the Bible is of a
far higher quality.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>

Any prominent Egyptologist who dared to point this out to him is no
longer a prominent Egyptologist. I am interested in data, not in the
names and academic positions of people who publish it.

>
>
>>>... 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.
>
>

I did not say this.

>
>
>>>... 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. ...
>

Perhaps some people are more interested in making money to live on than
in getting meaningless qualifications.

>... I am also wary of
>groups that are "read only if you subscribe." ...
>

Agreed. But you lose nothing by subscribing, and can always unsubscribe
again immediately.

>... Is there any single
>prominent Egyptologist that has been convinced? ...
>

See my point above about Egyptologists.

>... 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.
>
>

Such as? But then I have quite deliberately not mentioned this name.

>
>
>>>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
>
>

Thank you. I'm afraid I can't take seriously anything written by Dr
Quack! As for Bennett's paper, this has been made obsolete by Rohl et
al's subsequent publications which have filled in some of the gaps which
he rightly complains about. Well, he concludes: "Simply put, I think
Rohl is wrong.  Dead wrong.  Magnificently wrong.  ... Nevertheless,
Rohl deserves attention and respect." You, Yitzhak, may also think that
Rohl is wrong, but please treat his ideas with some respect.

>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. ...
>

These people may say that they date Solomon from Shoshenq, but when it
comes down to it the top scholars on Shoshenq continue to date him
primarily from the Bible.

>... 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. ...
>

This is a misrepresentation of the group, many of whom have no special
interest in 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.
>
>

I do not appeal to authorities and I am not going to attempt to answer
your request here to provide an authority. The truth is the truth
regardless of who accepts it and their academic positions.


--
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