h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

rod and staff are to be found after a faces gig

Heh, believe it or not, that one wasn't on my list.

If you want a stab at a serious answer: Hebrew poetry uses doublings, rather as English peotry uses rhyme and Anglo-Saxon poetry uses alliteration. There are some examples here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_poetry#Parallelism

This is what Matthew famously fails to understand when he writes (in Greek, which doesn't use parallelism) about Jesus riding on a donkey and an ass into Jerusalem.

So perhaps God only has one rod / staff.

Gif

seriously a staff is a walking stick think shepards crook

rod is a thinner swich think riding crop

staff is a weapon to defend the shepard think quater staff

rod is a weapon to defend the flock think(stick you beat your children or dog with.....is that right warner)

British parliamentarians are fond of black rod.

Especially when he wears his stockings.

More discussions about Ardipithecus, discussing the true significance of the scientific discoveries most notable the mostly complete skeletal remains show how parts are arranged which removes some of the guess work of amalgamating a model. It shows a patchwork of features showing that chimpanzee evolution has been as great as our own diverging from a common ancestor - and while Ardi is not that it puts detail on the time line further back and reveals some interesting details - specifically the canine teeth and the importance in aggressive mating rituals.

That's certainly one hypothesis I've heard before, inferred from how chimpanzees compete for mates - anyway listen, I'll not pre-empt it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2009/oct/01/fossil-ardi-common-ancestor?popup=true

The farther back they find our 'human' ancestors the more depressed I get. The old idea that we only had a history of 4-6000 years seems quite comforting now.

It's hard to believe we really haven't 'evolved' that much in more than 4 million years. Not to mention how boring 4 million years would be. No wonder we're still behaving like 'animals'.

It's kinda like the 'domesticated dog' theories. Some say dogs becames our friends (somewhere in China) only about 4000 years ago. While others have claimed we had pet wolves in our caves 400,000 years back.

Personally, being a dog person, I find the idea that 400,000 year old wolf bones were found in the same caves as 400,000 year old human bones quite satisfying. But whose to say one or the other wasn't just being eaten.


~jwf~

>>The farther back they find our 'human' ancestors the more depressed I get. The old idea that we only had a history of 4-6000 years seems quite comforting now. <<

Come again???

>>It's hard to believe we really haven't 'evolved' that much in more than 4 million years.<<

Um.. the evidence is of quiet significant evolution i.e the foot arch, the pelvis, the brain case - what do you mean we haven't evolved???

>>. No wonder we're still behaving like 'animals'. <<

Is squiggles just pulling my leg?

<>

Although if the exodus was at the close of the Middle Kingdom (see F19585?thread=5985941&skip=4051&show=2 ) the walls were there just at the right time for Joshua to knock them down. Still nowt to do with angels though.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

Ah, now I may not know much about the Ipuwer papyrus, but general Palestinian archaeology I can at least bluff my way in.

The problem with an early date for the Exodus (end of the Middle Kingdom would put it at c1650 BC), aside from it conflicting with the Bible's dating scheme, is that there is simply no evidence of a Conquest of Canaan at about that time. We don't see cities being systematically destroyed and replaced by a different culture. What we see is occasional local battles, but cultural continuity.

We also have the Tell el-Amarna letters, which indicate that Canaan was under Egyptian administration during the late 1300s BC. Therefore the Conquest cannot have happened before this time.

Gif

I guess with all the obvious expertise being displayed in this thread
I should just forget about trying to fly my sonic cannon theory?

Let me then merely suggest that bagpipes have been known
to shatter nerves if not walls. And cannon have oft been called
trumpets. I seem to recall that one of Krupp's big boys was known
as 'the voice of god'.


~jwf~

Hi Gif

This will probably bore everyone else, and probably you too , but chronology is a minor hobby horse of mine. But I'll try to be brief with just a taster of a few anomalies in chronology.

As you say (and I did too, come to that), an early date for the exodus, relative to the Egyptian chronology, would mean that the absolute dates for one or the other would have to be changed.

So - fast forward. We can agree, I think, that we have a good correlation between biblical chronology and Assyrian chronology that takes us back as far as Ahab and Omri, yes? So the biblical chronology must be roughly correct at least that far back.

What about correspondence between the biblical chronology and Egyptian chronology? We can definitely identify pharaoh So, from shortly before the final conquest of Israel as one of the late kings of the Libyan period (probably SOsenk, possibly oSOrkon), but before that we can only find one correspondence between these two countries only a few days journey away from each other. This is the identification of Shishak, the pharaoh who conquered the newly divided kingdom in c.925 BC, with Sosenk, the first pharaoh of the Libyan period.

But this identification, made solely on a similarity of the names, and elevated into one of the lynchpins of chronology, may be questioned on a number of grounds. Firstly, the philologists tell us that despite the similarity, Shishak cannot be derived from Sosenk; it is more likely to be derived from the -ses element of a name like Tuthmoses or Rameses. Secondly, Sosenk's description of his campaign bears no resemblance to that of Shishak, being limited to a few towns in Northern Israel. Thirdly, Manetho (or at least his copyists) gives 120 years for the XXII dynasty, but we have to double that to make the connection with Shishak. And fourthly, if Shishak is Sosenk, who is Zerah the Ethiopian?

So if this one correspondence fails we have no point of contact between Egyptian history and biblical history prior to pharaoh So. Do we have any evidence that biblical history suddenly becomes totally wrong immediately before Ahab and Omri?

Perhaps archaeology can help us out where the written record can't?
But this post is long enough for now. I will just ask, what do you know about the use of scarabs for dating in Palestinian archaeology, and what do you know about the inscriptions in Hebrew letters in the tomb of Ahiram? Both worth investigating.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

>we have a good correlation between biblical chronology and Assyrian chronology that takes us back as far as Ahab and Omri, yes?

Yes. I'd go further and say that we can therefore have reasonable confidence that the names (if not the details) for the kings list of Israel is probably accurate back as far as Solomon and David.

>So if this one correspondence fails we have no point of contact between Egyptian history and biblical history prior to pharaoh So. Do we have any evidence that biblical history suddenly becomes totally wrong immediately before Ahab and Omri?

I don't know about 'suddenly'. It's widely agreed that the Pentateuch reached its current form around the time of the Exile. It's not unreasonable (in fact it's virtually certain) that the authors had access to older records, e.g. a kings list. Prior to that, they used mythology, apparently often borrowing heavily from the Babylonians. Geopolitical boundaries they simply put where they were at the time of writing. Pharaohs are not named because they didn't know the names of any ancient Pharaohs (because the Pharaohs described do not correspond to real people - there was no 'Pharaoh of the Exodus').

As to what the evidence shows: Jeroboam to Zimri (the five rulers before Omri) probably wouldn't have left any evidence of their rules anyway, so the 'argument from silence' is irrelevant. That brings us back to Solomon (c.950 BC), by which time we can be certain that the archaeological evidence clashes with the Biblical 'golden age' myth. If Solomon's rule was anything remotely like that described in the Bible, there should be ample archaeoogical evidence for it, in one of the most heavily archeologied areas in the world. There's basically nothing.

>what do you know about the use of scarabs for dating in Palestinian archaeology, and what do you know about the inscriptions in Hebrew letters in the tomb of Ahiram?

Not much. If you mean this tomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahiram it's Phoenician, not Hebrew (though both are Semitic) and dates to around 1000BC. And as for scarabs - I assume they would be consistent with the accepted idea that the Egyptians conquered Palestine during the New Kingdom, and had contact (i.e. trade links) during the Middle Kingdom.

Gif

Hi Gif

I generally agree with your post, but I still pose the question about Zerah the Ethiopian. If he is not an invention then who is he? Why would he be an Ethiopian during the time of the Libyan dynasts? And if he is an invention why would we give credence to the story of the earlier Shishak?

Egyptian scarabs in Palestine - you'd think so, wouldn't you? But in fact, while these scarabs are considered as reliable (indeed as defining) in the chronologies of Mykenae and Crete, which can't be independently dated because of the hiatus of the 500 year long Greek and Anatolian dark ages, in Palestinian archaeology they are regarded as unreliable because they regularly in appear in strata 500-600 years more recent than the pharaohs whose scarabs they are.

That article in W*k* doesn't begin to do justice to the controversy surrounding the Tomb of Ahiram. The year 1000 is a compromise between the different dates of the objects it contained. On the one hand fragments of vases were found with cartouches of Rameses II (13th century), and also a Mykenean plaque of a similar age. On the other, the sarcophagus is of a style previously thought to have been late Phoenician (an example is known from as late as the 4th century), and pottery identified as of Cyprian origin and dated to the 7th century was also found.

Even more intriguing are the inscriptions in Hebrew letters, one on the wall of the shaft, the other on the lid of the sarcophagus, warning violators against desecrating the tomb. Not only were these by far the earliest such letters ever found, but their form is similar to those of a much later date. The age ascribed to the tomb consequently varies between the 13th and 7th centuries, depending on the author, and the anomalous data are treated in much the same way that creationists treat fossils.

You can probably see a pattern emerging here.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

>I generally agree with your post, but I still pose the question about Zerah the Ethiopian. If he is not an invention then who is he? Why would he be an Ethiopian during the time of the Libyan dynasts? And if he is an invention why would we give credence to the story of the earlier Shishak?

What we know if Shishak fits well with Shoshenq I. Dates and descriptions match, and the names are very close.

On the other hand, supporting evidence for Zerah is much harder to find. Best fit seems to be Osorkon II (who passed through Judea with a massive army but did not stop of conquer; we might imagine Judean leaders spinning this as a military success), but the dates are slightly out, the names don't match and, as you say, Osorkon was Egyptian not Cushite. An alternative would be an invasion by someone otherwise unrecorded by history, but it would seem unlikely that such a massive army could arise from a kingdom small enough to have been overlooked by archaeologists - in this case, the Biblical authors must be exaggerating. It seems reasonable to conclude that there is a problem with the Biblical account here either way (and there are other possibilities also).

There doesn't seem to be any great problem with regarding Chronicles as being 'patchily reliable'. Zerah is probably exaggerated or distorted to make Judah seem more powerful than it was.

Any references for those Palestinian scarabs? I can't find anything on the net.

Ahiram's tomb is obviously difficult to date, but this is not unusual in tombs (I'm thinking mostly of Egyptian tombs, admittedly). One ruler might 're-use' a tomb, even going so far as to delete the builders' name and add his own instead. So problematic, yes, but far less so than trying to say that Ramesses II and Amenemhat III both lived around 650 BC.

Gif

Not to discourage or inhibit this higher level of discussion in any way, but only to add a fresh perspective, have you ever wondered why Dr Who so seldom got involved in the history of Egyptian/Hebrew/Babylonian/etc. conflicts.

I posit that a hard-learned, conditioned-reflex fear-of-anachronism keeps the writers away from middle eastern history. Unlike ancient scribes who were not quite so intimidated by an educated and critical fan base.

Only Terry Pratchett has dared to dig in the desert sands of Discworld for grains of Truth. Among his most satisfying DISC-overies is a camel which turns out to be the whirled's greatest mathematician.

(sic)
~jwf~

<>

But see what I said above. The descriptions don't match and the date is the same because the biblical account was used to fix the date. Shoshenk is not independently dated to 945.

Obviously not a good day for google. I can't find anything on Osorkon II invading or passing through Judaea either. On the scarabs I've been trying to avoid sites which promote chronological revision, but other sites don't really mention them, either as confirmation or rejection.

Although there are tombs in Byblos dating from the middle kingdom and one close to Ahiram's tomb with objects of Amenhemat III it's a different tomb. It's only Rameses II we have to worry about (Actually that's not true. It's chronology between the end of the middle kingdom and the arrival of Alexander).

There is no sign that Ahiram's tomb was reused. The evidence for the early date is the vase with the cartouche of Rameses II. Although the tomb eas violated in antiquity there seems little reason for looters to have brought 600 year old broken pottery into the tomb. The other contents of the tomb are later.

THere are actually a number of scholars who believe that believe that there is something seriously wrong with Egyptian chronology, because of the number of anomalies of stratigraphy and history that result from it, from Greek letters on Ramesside tiles to the stratification of Gordium, from the Peoples of the Sea to the destination of the voyage of Queen Hatshepsut, not to mention the dark ages of Greece and Anatolia.

It's actually much harder to find a reason for eg Rameses II being in the 13th century in the first place than it is to find reasons for locating him in the 7th/6th century.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

>Shoshenk is not independently dated to 945.

Sure he is. We can date him the same way we date all the Egyptian Pharaohs - from the lengths of reign given by various kings lists, especially Manetho's: A25088709 (NB: I wrote that Entry - just pointing it out to be clear I am using myself as a reference here! Looking back over it, I notice that Rohl's revised chronology differs by only 200 years, not the 600 you need).

>I can't find anything on Osorkon II invading or passing through Judaea either.

You need to Google on Zerah, not Osorkon:
"Osorkon II, is known to have entered the Kingdom of Judah, with a huge army, in 853BC; however, rather than attacking Judah, the army was just passing through, on its way to attack the Assyrian forces."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerah#The_Cushite (I think the battle refered to is Qarqar).

>Although there are tombs in Byblos dating from the middle kingdom and one close to Ahiram's tomb with objects of Amenhemat III it's a different tomb.

Ah, OK, I read that wrong.

>There is no sign that Ahiram's tomb was reused.

Agreed. I offer it only as an example of the sort of reason why the content and/or inscriptions of a tomb may not match its date of construction. If we have a consistent Egyptian chronology with one difficult-to-date tomb, let's not throw out the whole chronology, yeah?

>there seems little reason for looters to have brought 600 year old broken pottery into the tomb.

Agreed. I can only assume that the (several) archaeologists who proposed this meant that the tomb was used as a cache or something by looters. But it's not a convincing explanation to me.

>THere are actually a number of scholars who believe that believe that there is something seriously wrong with Egyptian chronology, because of the number of anomalies of stratigraphy and history that result from it

There's a *very small* number of scholars, of the David Rohl level, and mostly motivated by a desire to fit Egyptian history to the Bible. They are few enough that they get their own page on Bad Archaeology:
http://www.badarchaeology.net/confused/rohl.php

>It's actually much harder to find a reason for eg Rameses II being in the 13th century in the first place than it is to find reasons for locating him in the 7th/6th century.

Well, Manetho dates him to there. We have recovered his mummy, though I don't know for sure whether it (or his burial cloths) have been carbon-dated. (The mummy was re-wrapped in antiquity, but dating the cloths would still be informative.) There are also Hittite references to the Battle of Kadesh, at which Ramesses fought.

Gif

This thread when not visited by the creationist yokels has the potential to deliver some really high-brow intellectual discussions.

I'm realising how much I didn't know through these exchanges. Thanks Gif and Noggin.

Indeed it's rather unusual to see both sides of a discussion being properly argued.