Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Karl, your so-called "middle" chronology is what everyone else calls the "low" chronology. Your so-called "low" chronology is rejected by over 99% of Egyptologists and so doesn't even rate a mention with it's own category. It's evaluated as fantasy.

Now 99% of Egyptologists could be wrong. It's possible. But hey, let's not quibble. Let's get back to Hebrew.

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)

On 19/04/2013, at 12:51 AM, "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

George:

There are three chronologies that I’ve heard of, high (Raamsis II ca. 1200 BC), middle (Raamsis II another name for Shishaq who invaded and conquered the divided kingdom after the death of Solomon) and low (Raamsis II = Necho). I’m not making anything up, I haven’t made enough of an investigation of history to make my own theory. However, of the three, the low chronology seems to make the best fit with what archaeology I know. It fits with what I’ve heard from a few sources that the Tell Amarna tablets date from the divided kingdom period. Their messages don’t fit the findings of archeology from the other two chronologies.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 6:56 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:

Oh Oh, au contraire, Karl! The Sea Peoples made incursions into Egypt during the late 13th and early 12th centuries BC. Even allowing for the differences between high and low chronologies, this is pretty watertight. Only scholars who engage in wholesale reconfiguration of chronology based on speculation—and we are really only talking about a handful of "scholars" here—would date it otherwise. This has nothing to do with belief in the Bible or not. It's a good ol' plain archaeological datum.

But we are departing from the concerns of B-Hebrew. So let's not reinvent new history. Let's stick to the language and literature of Hebrew.

Further, we have in the language and literature of Hebrew that Jeremiah mentioned a brick kiln next to the king’s palace in Egypt. That it should be standing next to the palace indicates its importance, its value to the king. Therefore that brick kiln was connected to the king or maybe to his father as it was not yet torn down.

Archeology has found that only one Egyptian king before the Greco-Roman period used kiln fired bricks, and that was Raamsis II. Tying that with the record found in Hebrew language and literature, therefore Raamsis II = Necho. And the Sea Peoples’ invasions are dated to his and his son’s reigns.

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)

Sydney, Australia

Just because Kitchen and his disciples make up the vast majority of historians employed by universities today, doesn’t make them accurate. I’m independent-minded enough to compare their claims, the claims of the other two chronologies, compare all with the findings of archeology, which leads me to the conclusion that the low chronology best fits the archaeological findings. As I’m not a professional historian nor archaeologist, I’m open to being shown that my present conclusions are wrong, but I now know enough that the bar is pretty high, the data needs to be high quality, not just appeals to authority.

Karl W. Randolph.