Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 18/09/2006 00:55, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
>  It is a bit amusing to observe people express solemn 
>   opinions on subjects in which they don't really have training.It
>    would appear that matters Egyptological are best left to
>    Egyptologists.
>   \
>     For example, Peter Kirk has written, inter alia: 
> "..... The orthodox estimate of 
> the date of Shoshenk I is dependent on estimates by Thiele etc of the 
> date of the Shishak invasion in 1 Kings. Kitchen et al have fitted other 
> Egyptian rulers around this date for Shoshenk I but with a lot of 
> uncertainties. And Thiele's dates are derived from the Bible and from 
> Mesopotamian data, but not at all from Egyptian. ....
>   

I am not personally an Egyptologist. But I have read some of the 
conclusions of Egyptologists. And I don't need Egyptology to know that 
Thiele's dates are not dependent on it.

>    To reject commonly accepted  Egyptian chronologty  because it does
>   not fit with biblical chronology  -- clearly typological --  based on 
> numbers
>    such as 480 or 40 years, is an expression of faith, not scholarship.
>   

To reject the clearly stated data in the Bible in favour of speculative 
dates derived from Egyptology, based for example on all kinds of 
assumptions about likely reign lengths, co-regencies assumed or rejected 
as convenient to fit the overall reconstruction etc, is an expression of 
faith in Egyptology, not scholarship.


--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/