Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah - and assumed knowledge

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah - and assumed knowledge
  • Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:11:44 +0100

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/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page