Biblical Hebrew Forum

[banyai AT t-online.de]

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