Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magdlyn · 09-21-2004, 06:38 AM

As per The Bible Unearthed by Finklestein and Silberman:

Quote:

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com's Best of 2001
The Bible Unearthed is a balanced, thoughtful, bold reconsideration of the historical period that produced the Hebrew Bible. The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of anything about ancient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of King Josiah. In that period, "the narrative of the Bible was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of Judah." Yet the authors deny that their arguments should be construed as compromising the Bible's power. Only in the 18th century--"when the Hebrew Bible began to be dissected and studied in isolation from its powerful function in community life"--did readers begin to view the Bible as a source of empirically verifiable history.

But, I have had brought to my attention, this article, on the "new chronology:"

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/judeoroots/rohl.htm

Quote:

Champollion thought he had found "Judah the Kingdom" among the hieroglyphs of subdued cities listed in Sheshonq's inscription,(4) and concluded that Sheshonq could be none other than the Biblical Pharaoh "Shishak."(5) Shishak, according to 2 Chronicles 12, "captured the fortified cities of Judah" five years after the death of King Solomon. The Bible goes on to say that Jerusalem was spared only after Shishak "carried off ... everything." By 1888, Champollion's "Judah the Kingdom" had been correctly translated as "Monument of the King,"(6) and associated geopgraphically with northern Israel by virtue of its position in the Karnak mural campaign itinerary.(7) However, the mis-identification of Shishak with Sheshonq was not overturned, and has remained the cornerstone of ancient chronology.

Ramses IIIn the New Chronology model, the Pharaoh who besieges the fortified cities of Judah and subdues Jerusalem five years after the death of Solomon is re-identified as the 19th Dynasty Pharaoh Ramses II.(8) The well documented campaign of Ramses II against Palestine in his Year 8 corresponds much more closely to that of the Biblical Shishak than that of Sheshonq. Examination of the account of Sheshonq's invasion reveals that it was directed primarily toward the northern kingdom of Israel, and that Judah was deliberately bypassed by the Egyptian army.(9) Moreover, no mention is made in the Bible of the northern kingdom of Israel being humbled by Shishak. On the other hand, Ramses II's campaign did concentrate primarily on Judah and the Shasu nations of the Sinai and southern transjordan, and Ramses II specifically claims to have "plundered Shalom," i.e., Jerusalem.

Furthermore Rohl has determined that Shisha is an acceptable transliteration of the official Egyptian nickname (Sysw)(10) of the Pharaoh Ramses II, and that the liguistic path to the Biblical name Shishak is more straightforward than that of Sheshonq, especially if it is recognized that the final "k" was added as a play on words (a recognized practice used in the Bible when translating foreign names) to render the connotation of "assaulter" in Hebrew.(11)...etc.

Can anyone shed some light on the controversy?

Thank you,
Magdlyn

Celsus · 09-21-2004, 09:45 AM

Both Rohl and Finkelstein are chronological revisionists. The former is full of shit, the latter stakes a serious claim. "New chronology" is just that, it's a new chronological sequence and set of pegs, not a particular archaeological theory. What exactly would you want clarified?

Joel

Magdlyn · 09-21-2004, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

What exactly would you want clarified?

Joel

Thanks for your comments. "Shit," while blunt and to the point, is not exactly informative.

I would like clarification on all of it, from those who have a good working knowledge of the time period in question. Ramses=Shisha=SYSW+K, not Sheshonq, for one.

The solar eclipse?

The Ankhenaten "Amarna letters?"

I am a complete rube on all this, so I am just asking for any more educated guesses or theories that have been made to refute the Rohl "New Chronology."

Perhaps Toto will come up with a previous thread, in his helpful way... :love:

Toto · 09-21-2004, 11:47 AM

Your faith in me is, um, touching, but this is not an area that I am really up on.

But I can search on Shishak, and there are these hits that look promising:

Tel Rehov

"Who Wrote the Bible" vs. "The Bible:Unearthed"

King David and Solomon

and there is this previous thread on the New Chronology that never got a serious answer.

Google tells me this about the "New Chronology"

Conclusive evidence against Rohl's proposed New Chronology from the Waste of Time homepage

Quote:

This website is devoted to exposing David Rohls New Chronology of Ancient Egypt and showing that it will not stand the "Test Of Time". That is not to say that chronological revision or refinement is wrong or not required. Rohls 350 years is simply impossible.

And Christiananswers does not like him either: David Rohl's Revised Egyptian Chronology:A View From Palestine

Quote:

One is tempted to dismiss Rohl as simply another crackpot and get on with more important issues. Rohl, however, cannot so easily be brushed aside. As opposed to most who attempt to revise ancient history, Rohl has some scholarly training - he has studied Egyptology and ancient history at University College, London. Moreover, the lay public, largely as the result of a three-part video series based on his book, have become enamored with his supposed Biblical correlations.

Celsus · 09-21-2004, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

I would like clarification on all of it, from those who have a good working knowledge of the time period in question. Ramses=Shisha=SYSW+K, not Sheshonq, for one.

I don't know Hebrew or Hieratic or whatever these were written in, but you might ask spin for a definitive answer on that one. I know that very few scholars take Rohl's translations seriously.

Now I must be careful, because chronological revision usually attempts to build an entirely new house of cards, not just shifting a card or two around. From what it sounds like though, Rohl has found a strained reference to Ramesses III and built a castle of sand over it. Ramesses III's control over Palestine was substantial, and when it ended, the Sea Peoples ascended (this is attested in Ramesses' time and after in inscriptional, monumental, and relief findings). If Rohl moves Ramesses III to destruction layers attributed to Shishak, then he's got some serious explaining to do in explaining the lack of a rise of Sea Peoples after the decline of Ramesses (they would have been eclipsed with the rise of the Assyrians). Undoubtedly, someone familiar with Rohl would have come up with some apologetic for that.

Secondly, the list of towns in Shoshenq's relief is possibly copied from the one in Thutmose III's victory stele also at Karnak (the likelihood of him getting as far as Mitanni is well nigh impossible), and toponymal study would likely be fruitless.

His entire enterprise consists of fitting all chronology to the Bible, so as to preserve the historical inerrancy of the Bible. Needless to say, on methodological grounds, it fails from the start because he doesn't treat the Bible itself as artifactual as any other ancient text. Secondly its assumptions about ancient historiography are hopelessly anachronistic and downright ridiculous at times. However, I haven't read the links but I can predict that it would be a waste of time.

Quote:

The solar eclipse?

The Ankhenaten "Amarna letters?"

What about these? The Amarna letters say nothing that fits Rohl's chronology, unless he's going to equate Abdi-Heba with David or something similar. I know of Rohl, but I've never decided he was worth the time to look at seriously and debunk. I suspect he also says the Ebla texts mention Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Quote:

I am a complete rube on all this, so I am just asking for any more educated guesses or theories that have been made to refute the Rohl "New Chronology."

The Waste of Time page Toto linked above is a good one that I've linked others to as well. Notably, it has quotes from conservative favourite Kenneth Kitchen saying what a waste of time Rohl is. It's mainly Christians and a few New Age nuthouses who are enamoured with Rohl.

Joel

Chris Weimer · 09-22-2004, 12:00 AM

learn hieratic!

no more excuses!

Magdlyn · 09-22-2004, 04:46 AM

Thanks everyone for all the info. I will make my way through it and have passed it on to my questioning friend (Jewish, BTW) on the other board.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-21-2004, 09:45 AM	#2
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Both Rohl and Finkelstein are chronological revisionists. The former is full of shit, the latter stakes a serious claim. "New chronology" is just that, it's a new chronological sequence and set of pegs, not a particular archaeological theory. What exactly would you want clarified? Joel

09-22-2004, 12:00 AM	#6
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	learn hieratic! no more excuses!

09-22-2004, 04:46 AM	#7
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Thanks everyone for all the info. I will make my way through it and have passed it on to my questioning friend (Jewish, BTW) on the other board.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.