Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Raamses (Thiele´s chronology)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: banyai AT t-online.de
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Raamses (Thiele´s chronology)
  • Date: 20 Sep 2005 13:02 GMT

Peter Kirk wrote:

> >If the dates proposed by Kitchen and others for Sheshonq are off by a few
> >decades, this would force Thiele, Tadmor, Galil etc. to
> Thiele etc cannot adjust their dates because they have a full set of
> data. By comparison the dates the Egyptologists have are based on very
> scanty data. I predict that they will find new data which will force
> them to adjust some of the details of their reconstruction - but they
> will manage to make compensatory adjustments to get back to the Thiele
> etc date for Shishak.

While I can but nick approvingly over your last sentence, I must however
criticise a little Thiele´s methodical approach, which is false, and thus
shutter your belief in his results.

Thiele´s method is in fact utterly uncorrect. He for example fails to
recognise the cases of "biblical" coregency on independent terms. A coregency
is for him an interpolation of data requiring such a solution up to solve his
synchronisms between Israel and Juda. Eventually those between these states
and Assyria for the later kingdom too. Since there are several contradicting
biblical statements concerning these synchronisms, this leaves all dependent
on the good instincts of Thiele and also dependent on the accuracy (better to
say lack of fraudulent data) offered by the AKH, which differs by a constant
amount of 18 years from the Israelite-Judahite data (should one work for the
first only with the biblical data before taking adjustments on this data and
assuming otherwise unattested coregencies).

He failed to observe that coregencies are stated plain in the biblical text
and occur always in the cases where a repetition of the regnal formula occurs
(once at beginning of the text dealing with the reign of the king - once at
closing the story of the king). All these cases without exception can be
identified both from the circumstances invoked in the text as well on
synchronistic reasons as situations as a coregency occured. It is therefore
very important to avoid any suplementary unwarranted assumptions of
coregencies.

In fact it can be shown, that the contradicting synchronistic statements in
the biblical material concerning the later monarchy, stem exactly from an
attempt of the biblical redactor to adjust his data with the Assyrian data.
He had statements concerning certain contacts between Israel/Juda and
Assyria, but was not able to arrive to a synchronism, because his data and
the assyrian data diverged already by 18 years (a moon period). So he created
a second set of synchronisms between Israel and Juda, bringing both
chronologies down by 18 years and thus reestablishing synchronisms with
Assyria.

Once one has recognised this fact, one should have ignored this set of data,
since it is not the result of traditing but of a previous attempt at a
synchronistic history between Israel/Juda and Assyria, like Thiele´s and very
much like the well known synchronistic history between Assyria and Babylon.
This last involves too much reconstruction from the side of its redactor and
is not exclusively the result of genuine tradition.

Instead, does Thiele use synchronistic data from both synchronistic pools as
it fits his purpose, mixing genuine (but maybe wrong data) and such data,
which is the result of the work of his forrerunner as a chronologist
redacting the biblical data. This method is massively flawed.

A further great problem is for Thiele to recognise the cases, when reigns are
counted involving the first regnal year or, instead, involving just the years
of independent reign (thus ignoring the first regnal year still shared with
one´s predecessor). Instead he launches an undemonstrated theory concerning
different New Year dates in Israel and Juda, thus once more getting
flexibility to jump between the assumption of regnal lengths of X or X+1
years entirely as he likes.

He has achieved by doing so an artificial flexibility marge in certain points
of ca. 20 years. This eliminates the posibility to regard his chronology as
being independent from the Assyrian data. This flexibility doesn´t in fact
exist, it disappears as soon one respects the criteria above.

The result of the reconstruction will be a chronological scheme as tradited,
which should be only in a next step compared with the Assyrian data. It is
not selfcontradicting, since all contradictions from the text have been
eliminated and have not been used as a chronological quarry following the
motto: the combination of data of unknown origin leading to a synchronisation
is the correct one. (It is clear since there are here contradicting
synchronistic statements - there is here more than a hand at work! What is he
doing instead of trying to separate the sources: he mixes.)

The purpose of chronology is to avoid as much as possible the mix of data:
that is mixing data of different sources - assyrian, egyptian, hebrew, etc.
The ideal is to obtain at first independent chronologies, which can later be
adjusted. We are able on such a basis to recognise in each case which of the
sources is faked, thus contributing to a missalignment.

Best regards,

Banyai Michael





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page