Peter,
You wrote (in an earlier post):
And then Shoshenk I of Egypt was dated from the synchronism with Solomon, on the dubious assumption that he is the "Shishak" of 1 Kings 14:25
Could you explain why the assumption is "dubious"?
You also wrote:You are wrong. See below. I accept that the biblical evidence is somewhat uncertain, but it is far better and more reliable than anything which has been found in Egypt. Egyptologists recognise that the biblical dates are better than theirs - even while some biblical scholars try to rubbish their own data.
But in fact your argument is back to front. It was the dating of Solomon which came first, e.g. from Ussher and as more recently refined e.g. by Thiele.
Whether or not in the past Egyptologists relied in the past on Biblical evidence for the dating of Shoshenq I, I doubt that today most Egyptologists would consider the Biblical evidence so reliable or useful for dating given the uncertainties in the record of Kings. What I said, to
which you responded is: "Usually Solomon is dated to the mid 10th century based on synchronism with Shoshenq's attack 5 years after his reign." And yes, today Solomon's dating is based on the synchronism
with Egyptian evidence. But the Egyptian evidence is absolute and is
not dependent on the Biblical evidence, not for the Biblical scholars
who date Solomon, nor for the Egyptologists who date Shoshenq. I was
talking about today.
Indeed to the last point. . There is little good evidence from Egypt
for the date of Shoshenk I, and what there is is hard to reconcile with
the mid 10th century.
Could you provide me with a reference to a discussion of "the little good
evidence from Egypt for the date of Shoshenq" and why it is hard to reconcile with the mid (or late) 10th century? Preferably, I would like to
read a discussion by a professional and respected Egyptologist on the
matter.
And now to the last post:
I was afraid of this... ...Well, you opened this can of worms, and you can't shut it again that easily.
I don't see how my statement above about the state of scholarship
today, whereby Solomon is dated via Shoshenq, and not vice versa,
opens this can of worms. That statement is true. ...
... It is also a valid
objection to someone dating Solomon according to his own
interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy. I really doubt Egyptologists
would consider an interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy as grounds
for dating Shoshenq differently. And they shouldn't.
... I cannot but point you to Kitchen's article at -I am aware of this paper.
http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/docs/volume2%20No2%20Dec2002/Kitchen%20paper.pdf
[Kitchen, Kenneth A., "Ancient Egyptian Chronology for Aegeanists",
Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 2.2 (2002)]
Good. Are you aware of studies arguing a different position over the last
5 years? (A response by Manning? Some other Egyptologist?)
2) independently works out in p. 8 that Shoshenq I lived between 945-939 BCE through 924-918 BCE, in order to prove, independent of the Bible, that Shoshenq I and Shishak of the Bible were contemporaries, as far as the Bible is concerned. That it works out with the Bible is nice, but it's not necessary for any Egyptologist.Nevertheless, Shoshenk I was dated to approximately these dates long before Kitchen worked out his chronology, long before the data Kitchen relies on had been discovered. That was my main point, that this biblical dating is primary, and afterwards Kitchen came along and
found support for it from Egypt.
Yes, there is indeed a problem in that the historical process by which
this date for Shoshenq was achieved is tainted due to previous views
of the Bible that are no longer current. That is, Solomon was dated to
time X. Then Shoshenq was dated to time X. Then a new analysis of
Solomon's date is also constructed that is made to match Shoshenq's
time X because it is so important. And since Kitchen might also be
influenced by Solomon's "new dating" (which is actually circularly based
on the original Solomon dating) Kitchen also tries to make out Shoshenq
to time X. A big circular loop. ...
... I would be interested to know if there are
similarly prominent Egyptologists that offer independent analyses from that of Kitchen's. ...
... Nevertheless, Kitchen's analysis is, on paper,
independent of the Bible, ...
...
Kitchen does take the possibilities of co-regencies into account. See,
for example, his comments on page 6 where he deals with Shebitku
ruling as viceroy in Nubia under Shabako. I'm surprised to hear that Kitchen made so basic mistakes. Didn't any prominent Egyptologist
point this out to him? ...
... Also, Kitchen's article was published in 2002.
Which of the Pharaoh's reigns had to be revised afterwards due to new
inscriptions? ...
... So, in sum, it appears to me that you are raising
non-specific objections to allow you to doubt Kitchen's method. However, without specifics (which new inscriptions) and without a reference to a similarly prominent Egyptologist who concurs that these
objections are valid, I don't know how valid these objections are. I
note that Kitchen is here very terse, but apparently elsewhere (see
bibliography) explains the reasoning for using these specific numbers
as the reign lengths. Here he just uses these figures to establish the
datings.
...
Then let's take it to ANE. I'm subscribed there, and so are some
Egyptologists who can point out clear falacies or direct us immediately
to a more current treatment of the subject. Do you have any objection
of me asking about your claims on ANE?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.