A Conversation for Ask h2g2

How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 121

Noggin the Nog

"...or whether a synchronising point can be found that would recalibrate the two histories in some way."

This was obviously the crucial point on which Velikovsky would hang his chronological reconstruction. The event is the Exodus, and the principle document which Velikovsky believed was the Egyptian version of the plagues and their aftermath was the Papyrus Ipuwer (Leiden 344).

Some background can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus
You will note that even within conventional scholarship there is a considerable divergence of opinions on its purpose, interpretation and dating.

A translation of the text may be found here.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm

And a brief summary of some of the correspondences between the bible and Ipuwer can be read here.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rTM5ZJJdJHYC&pg=PA24#v=onepage&q&f=false

Back later.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 122

Noggin the Nog

Okay, very briefly.

The issues seem to me to be

1)How closely do the two situations described resemble each other? There are plainly a number of parallels. An anarchic situation in which the social order is disturbed or overthrown, the river being blood, a period of darkness, ruination of crops, plagues of the livestock and of people, invasion of the country by asiatics, etc, as well as some differences. One question is (on the hypothesis that the same events are being described, of course), given that one of the accounts was written at, or soon after, the time, and the other was probably written down in its present form some hundreds of years after the event, from a different point of view, and for different reasons, how close a resemblance should we expect to find? Going by the text alone (ignoring chronological questions), is a possible identity a reasonable (as opposed to correct) hypothesis? That is, if we had reason to believe that the two had their origin at a similar point in time, would we still reject such an identity?

2)When was the text first composed? (the papyrus itself is a later copy).
Although there is general agreement that it is broadly a Middle Kingdom document, and early writers favoured a First Intermediate Period origin, according to the Wiki article "Modern research suggests that the papyrus dates to the much later 13th dynasty". The linguistic work behind this is by A. van Seters, and our current understanding of the 1ate 13th dynasty, particularly from excavations at Tell el Daba, seems to support this dating.

By conventional chronology this would be between about 1740 BC and 1700 BC, whereas biblical chronology places the exodus around 1450 BC, and Rameses as the pharaoh of the exodus would place it around 1300 BC. This difference is, of course, a strong reason for rejecting Ipuwer as a synchronism with the exodus (for most historians probably a stronger reason than textual objections).

With me so far?


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 123

Giford

Hi both,

Perhaps Tarantoes could act as a relatively neutral judge then, and let Nog and me know how we are doing in making the cases for & against Vel to a relative newcomer?

If we're going back to first principles, perhaps it's worth looking at the background into which Velikovsky introduced his theory. My contention is that Vel's methods were unsound, irrespective of later evidence that went against them.

Ages in Chaos was published in 1952. To be fair to Vel, that was probably the peak of 'Biblical Archaeology' - Kenyon's excavations at Jericho began that year, and within a couple of decades that consensus had reversed (and note that Vel continued to publish during that time, arguing against the increasing evidence that the Bible did not accurately reflect Middle-Eastern history at this time). So Vel's belef that the Bible was based in accurate history pre-700 BC is justifable in the context of its time, but only within limits. Even the most ardent Biblical maximalists of the time did not regard (e.g.) the Flood as a real event - Vel did. Even the more limited beliefs of the 'Biblical maximalists' became untenable during the period that Vel continued to publish his revisionist historical works. By 1974 or 75, it was clear that the Biblical record could not be matched to the archaeological evidence prior to about the early Kings period (i.e. about 700 BC), yet Vel continues to publish sequels to AiC unil his death in 79.

The logic of 'doubling up' of Egyptian history is also not quite as radical as it may at first seem. Our lists of Pharaohs are based heavily upon a very small number of lists, primarily that of Manetho, written many centuries (or even milennia) after the fact, and it is known that Dynasties that appear consecutively in the list occasionally ruled concurrently in different parts of Egypt. That said, there is no known historical example of what Vel is proposing - the duplication of reigns (or event whole Dynsties).

His logic then ran that because the Ipuwer papyrus described something that could be taken to be the Exodus, the two events must be the same. He did not entertain the idea that they might describe two separate things, much less that one might be mythical. Although we have shied away from discussing his catastrophism, this was an integral part of his theory, and even at the time flew in the face of geology and astrophysics. He also needed to introduce the idea of 'cultural amnesia' to explain why these catastophes were forgotten by so many, an ad hoc idea for which he had no evidence.

To come to your point (2) - yes, Vel did note this. Later archaeologists such as Thompson and Van Seters would come to the same observation, but would conclude that it was the Bible that was in error. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion here that Vel's views were strongly influenced by his Zionism, rather than following the evidence.

>is no reference to the Egyptians until the Exodus itself
As above, the obvious conclusion would be that the Bible is less than accurate here. Vel's decision to rewrite the whole of Middle-Eastern history to preserve (this part of) the Bible is methodologically strange.

>There is a reverse problem, too.
So the Bible doesn't match Egyptian history, and Egyptian history doesn't mention the Exodus. The obvious conclusion would be that the Bible is wrong here. Vel not only leaps in the opposite direction, he sticks to that conclusion when it requires the re-writing of virtually the whole of M-E history.

Finally, Vel needs to be highly selective in his use of evidence. Having found some 'matches' between one period and another, he then needs to ignore some clear contradictions. We've covered these before, and no doubt we will come to them again.

>given that one of the accounts was written at, or soon after, the time, and the other was probably written down in its present form some hundreds of years after the event, from a different point of view, and for different reasons, how close a resemblance should we expect to find?
Again, this is troubing logic on which to make the scale of changes Vel wants. It essentially says that where Exodus and Ipuwer match, we can take that as convincing evidence; but where they do not, we can discard that. In other words, it is a jutification of selective use of evidence.

So, to summarise, the problems I see with Vel's approach so far are:

- Prior commitment to a specific ideology (in Vel's case, Zionism) colouring his views, leading to:
- Massive re-writing of well established M-E history to preserve the accuracy of a single, suspect document. In other words, over-reliance on the Bible at the expense of all other evidence.
- 'Ad hoc' ideas, such as historical doubling and cultural amnesia, introduced solely to 'patch over' problems in his theory, without any external evidence.
- Selective use of evidence.
- All this without any really solid evidence in favour of his views.

Gif smiley - geek

PS: Tarantoes, the monotheist Pharaoh you are thinking of was Ankhenaten - you could discuss him under 'Ask h2g2' or on his Edited Entry - let me know so I can join in smiley - smiley


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 124

tarantoes

Hi yes, I'll do my best as an impartial (?) but interested "observer".
The holiday season is upon us so I'll probably be spending a little
less time on-line as I have been doing these past weeks (I suppose
this applies to all). I also assume that at some point everyone
will be whisked off to newhootoo - and hopefully the transition will
go smoothly. I'll look through all the recent posts shortly.

smiley - cheers


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 125

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif, Tarantoes

I'm actually going to start by agreeing with a lot of what Gif just said, especially about Vel's biases, rather less about his specific methodology related to the period in question, which is given in a rather simplistic form.

However

<>

I'll assume you mean about 900 BC, as following the conventional chronology we have a fixed date of correspondence between Egypt and the biblical history at c925BC (Shishak). The bible history is continuous (ie there is no clear cut change of style etc), and it would be something of a coincidence, although at least possible, if the transition from history to myth took place precisely at that moment.
Archaeology is a more complex question. We already know that many Egyptian Late Bronze Age (c1550-1150) objects, especially, but not only, scarabs, appear in Iron Age (1000-600) strata in Syria-Palestine. Matching archaeology to history also requires datable, stratified objects and events to fix the dates of sequences of strata, and the archaelogical picture of the transition from Late Bronze to Iron is still a messy one. That said, you're objection is noted and not dismissed, but for the moment I want to follow Vel's reasoning in some sort of sequence, as I think this gives a clearer picture of what he's actually saying.

<>

This I accept up to a point. I would say that I think, given the unusual nature of the events/circumstances described, and their correspondences, that they are unlikely to be two separate real events. But Vel was also clear that if the Exodus was not mythical, then historical events following it would have to correspond, too, or his reconstruction would fall. So I'm going to take a kind of "what if" approach, to see where it leads.

Firstly, can we agree that Ipuwer, with at least a reasonable level of probability, can be dated to the late 13th dynasty?

<>

I'm yes and no on this one. As I said, I think it would be strange if the two documents were identical, given their different viewpoints and transmission routes, but neither can we have carte blanche in interpretation. Which is why I framed the question "How much similarity/difference do we require/can we allow before coming to a definitive judgement on the text alone?"

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 126

Giford

Hi Nog,

Just dropping past with no time for a proper response. I will, however, make a quick clarification:

>it would be strange if the two documents were identical

Agreed, and that wasn't my point. My issue with Vel was that where they differ, he either discards the difference or takes Exodus as holy writ (sorry smiley - groan). He doesn't seem to seriously consider the possibility that Exodus might be less accurate than Ipuwer.

It may or may not be true that one is more accurate than the other (if, indeed, they are desribing the same thing - and in a milennium-long history, it is far from clear that there could only be one catastrophic drought) - but if making changes on the scale Vel is, we ought to at least *consider* the idea that either one could be inaccurate, I'd have thought.

As ever, you know Vel's writings beter than I do, so please correct me if he covers this point.

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 127

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

Given that his primary aim is to establish that the two documents are referring to the same events, Vel doesn't try to prove the Bible is more accurate than Ipuwer. Whatever his faults he was certainly aware that they wouldn't be exactly the same. The most important things - the famine and disease, the breakdown of the social order etc - are present in both.

The main differences might be that Ipuwer doesn't mention "the death of the firstborn", or the parting of the Red Sea, but does say that the country was invaded. I'm pushed for time, too, but we can maybe consider these and see how they pan out.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 128

Giford

Hi Nog,

So, in answer to your two questions:

1)How closely do the two situations described resemble each other?

You can compare the Ipuwer text for youself at: http://egypt.thetao.info/ipuwer.htm

This is a bit simplistic, but here are how the 10 plagues are represented in Ipuwer (at least after a quick skim - let me know if I missed anything):

1 Water turns to blood - 'the river is blood, yet men drink of it'

2 Frogs - not mentioned

3 Lice - not mentioned

4 Flies - not mentioned

5 Disease on livestock - 'pestilence is throughout the land'

6 Boils - not mentioned

7 Hail and thunder - not mentioned

8 Locusts - not mentioned

9 Darkness - not mentioned

10 Death of the firstborn - not mentioned

From 17 chapters of Ipuwer, I'd say that's a miss. Only 2/10 are mentioned at all, and one of those is such a stretch it's hardly convincing. Instead, Ipuwer dwells at great length on things that are not mentioned in Exodus - famine and the overthrow of social norms (beggars become as gods, etc).

I will admit that the shared reference to 'rivers of blood' is surprising; but given how common social upheaval must have been in Egypt's history (the First and Second Intermediates spring to mind), it's a stretch to identify Ipuwer with Exodus, *even if* we agree that Exodus is describing a real event.

2)When was the text first composed?

Looks like we both need to go with Wikipedia - Dyn 13 is a best guess, ie in the 1600 or 1700s BCE. Certainly no later than C13 BCE, since that is when the surviving copy was made.

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 129

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

That's all true, but could still be misleading. The writer of Ipuwer is presumably describing the state of the country at a slightly later date, since by that time the Asiatics had already invaded the country. He's not very specific about the causes of the misfortune.

But first of all, I want to pin down the situation in the late 13th dynasty a bit more closely. In an earlier discussion we looked at the Hyksos mentioned in the 12th dynasty, and the Hyksos 15th dynasty, and disagreed about whether these were the same people or not. Given your translation of Hyksos as "Rulers of Foreign Lands" this doesn't seem sufficient to decide one way or the other. But with Ipuwer and Manetho (via Josephus) both reporting an invasion of Asiatics in the 13th dynasty (Manetho has it immediately following "a blast of God's displeasure"), I think we have to conclude that the Hyksos dynasty were outside invaders.

Two things which we might expect if the Exodus did take place at this time are
1)The presence of Semitic people in the eastern delta in the 13th dynasty
2)That the Hebrews, fleeing eastwards across Sinai, would come into contact with the Hyksos crossing Sinai in the opposite direction.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 130

Giford

Hi Nog,

Yes, that sounds mostly accurate. (I can't remember the exact discussion we were having last time - I'm not wedded to that particular translation of 'Hyksos' if some point hung on it...?) Otherwise, it's mostly in good agreement with (for instance) the opening para of the Wiki entry on Hyksos (which also takes as read that the people who arrived during the 11th Dyn are the same as became the rulers expelled at the end of the 17th Dyn).

As to whether the Hyksos would have passed the Hebrews - that depends on a number of things, including the reality of both groups' journeys (i.e. Genesis/Exodus being accurate history), the dates of both groups' movements, and whether they were 'marching armies' or peaceful migration over several generations. Again, I don't recall what the issue was here...?

Since there is a good posibility the Hyksos *were* Semitic, there clearly were Semitic peoples in the Delta by the 13th Dyn, at least under the standard chron.

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 131

Noggin the Nog

What's critical here is whether the 11th dynasty Hyksos immigrants are the same people who became the rulers of Lower Egypt as the 15th dynasty (following Wiki), or whether the 15th dynasty kings were recent invaders (required by Vel, but also the opinion of some mainstream historians). We *can* say that Vel was being reasonable here, as he was following the accepted view at the time he wrote Ages in Chaos.

The translation of the word "Hyksos" is important because if it has a specific denotation that would count in favour of the new version, but if it means something like "foreigners", that would make the argument weaker.

Similarly, we know that the inhabitants of Avaris in the 12th and 13th dynaties and the hyksos are both, to a very high degree of probability, Semitic. This is certainly suggestive, but well short of proof (The French are Europeans, the Germans are Europeans, therefore the French are Germans). It's also what would have been expected if Vel was right, though at the time the site of Avaris had not been found.

In favour of the invasion theory are Manetho, and Ipuwer itself. Even within the standard chronology this issue is not definitively settled.

More controversiall, Vel adduced a more controversial third source - the shrine at El-Arish. http://www.pibburns.com/smelaris.htm
There's no doubt that Vel made much more of this than the inscription will bear. For a start, it's much later - Ptolemaic - the text is partly missing, and what there is presents a confused, mythological narrative. Nevertheless, the surviving text has some intriguing elements. First is the place name, rendered by the translators as Pekrarti, which, it was said, was unknown from other sources. Vel, however, claimed that the transliteration into Hebrew gave Pi-ha-Khiroth - where the Israelites encamped before the crossing of the Reed Sea. Ironically, he was slated more for this at the time than for the rest of his interpretation, but it's now accepted that the transliteration is quite reasonable. A few sentences further on we find "his majesty (the Egyptian God/king) jumped into the place of the whirlpool...". We also find reference to a period of darkness, during which no one could leave the palace, and the approach of "the evil-doers", "the children of Apep" (a Hyksos deity that appears in the name of the Hyksos king Apophis) coming from the east.

Make of it what you will.

Noggin




How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 132

Giford

Just missed a talk entitled 'The Vanishing Phoenicians' tonight, and was reminded of this thread... now, where had we got to?

>What's critical here is whether the 11th dynasty Hyksos immigrants are the same people who became the rulers of Lower Egypt as the 15th dynasty

Is there any reason to think they weren't? They were called by the same name, lived in the same place and at consecutive times.

>(The French are Europeans, the Germans are Europeans, therefore the French are Germans).

Yes, but... the two are the only Semitic peoples known from the area at that time. If the Avarisians aren't Hyksos, we have Hyksos arriving, vanishing without trace, Avarisians turning up apparently from nowhere (in the same place the Hyksos just vacated), then disappearing without trace to be replaced by the Hyksos re-appearing as if from nowhere.

>Vel, however, claimed that the transliteration into Hebrew gave Pi-ha-Khiroth

This is another problem with Vel's method generally. This kind of very loose tranliteration (particularly as seen in his use of Pharaonic names, of which no doubt more soon) is deeply dubious; there are so many possibilities you can probably find one to fit any theory you want. Mainstream historians tend to put weight on this only when there is a lot of other supporting evidence (even if that's just an absence of other candidates for a city we know existed somewhere).

I would imagine you have some examples of particularly dubious 'mainstream' uses of this technique smiley - smiley

Finally, there is again virtually no direct correspondence between the El-Arish text and any part of Exodus, and quite a lot of contradiction. Yet Vel picks and chooses parts of each text that are close. The question is, is there any more of a match than would be expected of *any* two texts of ancient doomsaying?

***

I was hoping to present a bit more of the positive evidence in favour of the 'Stan Chron', but again have falled to nit-picking Vel... will try to do better next time smiley - sadface

Gif smiley - geek


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 133

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

<>

Well, one reason to think they weren't, as I mentioned before, is that we have not just one, but two, written records indicating that the 15D Hyksos were newcomers. And if the name means rulers of foreign lands, or even just foreigners, then this is not a strong argument. The 11D Hyksos get a mere mention as entering Egypt at that time (although I can't find any reference to the Semitic immigrants at this time being called Hyksos), but we know nothing of their numbers, or whether the stay was permanent or temporary. If Vel is right, then the 13D Avarisians were the Israelites, and didn't disappear without trace, and the Hyksos would have entered Egypt across the Sinai (of which more later).

<> My point here was that this is now accepted as reasonable, and though we can't be sure that the same place is being referred to, the name only occurs in these two places (so "there are so many possibilities..." doesn't really work in this instance).

<>

I'll settle for one, just to show that it can happen. In the el-Amarna letters, the most prolific correspondent is the King of S'm'r and Gubla. Gubla is generally taken to mean Byblos, but this version of the name is unknown in other sources. The usual name is Gwal. The identity of S'm'r is unknown. I would contend that the identification is dubious (regardless of whether Vel is right or wrong).

<>

At this point it doesn't matter, as I've mostly been trying to elucidate our current picture of the end of the Middle Kingdom.

Nevertheless, I should probably add that if the Israelites were fleeing west to east across Sinai, they would probably have met the Hyksos coming the other way.

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 134

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

Tracked down the reference to the 11D (actually early 12D)"Hyksos". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beni_Hasan - see under tomb 3 (Khnumhotep II).The term used is actually the general Amu (asiatics), not Hyksos. Although the exact relationship of these people to the 12/13D inhabitants of Avaris is unknown, they are probably part of a process of immigration of Semitic people in the 12D.

Interestingly, if Vel was right, and the exodus took place at the end of the 13D, one thing we might have expected to find is evidence of Semitic peoples in the eastern delta in the 12 and 13D - which duly turned up at the excavation of Tell-el-Daba (Avaris). Later, after Avaris had been abandoned at the end of the Hyksos period, another city was built on the site - Pi-Ramesses, the name that appears in the bible as the city where the Israelites were put into bondage.

As I said, we have two written sources that tell us the 15D Hyksos were newcomers (three if Vel was right, and the Amalakites that the fleeing Israelites encountered crossing the Sinai were the Hyksos). Is the fact that the 13D Avarisians and the Hyksos were both Semitic (a large group of various peoples) enough to definitively ignore the written evidence?

Noggin


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 135

Noggin the Nog

Hi Gif

Partly to bump this back up

<> together with my own earlier question "How similar would they need to be (given their different purposes, viewpoints and transmissions) to accept that they are referring to the same events/situation?" (or conversely "how different would they need to be to rule out that possibility?" - there will presumably be an "uncertainty gap" for these last two).

It's very difficult to answer such questions with any precision, of course, especially as we are dealing with possibly four texts, not just two, (as well as archaeological data, particularly from Avaris)and doomreporting (as opposed to doomsaying) texts are not two a penny, but let's see what we can get.

Firstly we have some limiting factors. All four texts refer to Egypt. Two (Manetho/Josephus and Ipuwer) are pretty securely dated to the late/end 13D, so it's a reasonable inference that Manetho's "blast of God's displeasure", although unspecific, refers to the same events as Ipuwer, especially as both are *followed* by an invasion of Asiatic peoples. If (okay, big if) Exodus is also to be placed at this time, it's a reasonable inference that the Amalakites and the Hyksos are one and the same, and their invasion would have *followed* the disaster. El-Arish also has the people of Apep approaching from the east immediately following the events at "the place of the whirlpool".

As I said before, El-Arish and Exodus also have a period of darkness (not something you find in every disaster text), and a violent water event involving the death of a God/King in conjunction with a place name Pekrarti (P'k'r't) or Pi-Ha-Khiroth (P'k'r't), otherwise unknown.

Ipuwer and Exodus both have "the river is blood", pestilence, and arguably, social upheaval.

If the Exodus (if it happened) could be placed in the same timeline as the rest, this would probably be enough, I think, but that's the rub. A synchronism here would require that subsequent events are a good match. The better or worse such a match the more confidence we would have in accepting or rejecting the synchronism.

Noggin





How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 136

tarantoes

bump


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 137

tarantoes

Hi considering this is the last day of BBC-H2G2 (AFAIK), I'll add my
thoughts now.

Having read through the thread, there seems no doubt, that to discuss
this one requires to be knowledgeable on a number of fronts, and as
mentioned by Giford there is "a lot" of very specific detail one
needs to be aware of / familiar with. Indeed academically, these
issues are tackled through teams comprising individuals of various
specialisms including archaeologists, "egyptologists", geologists,
surveyors, ceramicists, archaeobotanists, archaeozoologists,
physicists, radiocarbonists, basketologists, linguists,
iconographists, crytographists ... (not sure if all these are true
words...)

If the point of discussion has been distilled down to whether
"Velikovsky was justified in proposing, on the evidence available at
the time, his chronological revision," rather than specific
weaknesses associated with the "standard" chronology (as accepted as
of "today") with the evidence available to "us" as of today - then it
is not clear how beneficial this will be.

Velikovsky was willing to break the laws of physics, inventing a
whole new form of celestial physics based on "electromagnetic"
propulsion of planets, in order to help prove/better understand some
Biblical text. If he was willing to do this, something patently
wrong, what may he have been prepared to do when dealing with more
qualitative sources of information (compared to say celestial physics).

Since Velikovsky's original suggestion of a revised chronology, the
field has moved on and has become more quantitative. Hence my view
is that if one wishes to discuss weaknesses in the more or less
"accepted" "standard" chronology then one should not bring in Velikovsky
but focus on the specific evidence, surrounding uncertainties and
weaknesses. Identifying weaknesses and considering means of
searching for new data to address these weaknesses would also be
beneficial, e.g. new digs in Ninevah*, Egypt, Libya, Israel, Syria,
Turkey, Iraq, Iran, further examinations of existing artefacts,
further rcarbon datings etc.

If one wishes to examine Velikovsky in terms of psychology / what
made him tick (his educational background, beliefs, actions etc) then
perhaps that would be a separate discussion, which would start off
at a different point.

Anyway maybe I have misunderstood a little this thread and am talking
nonsense but as BBC-H2G2 closes up shop I thought I had better give
my opinion that was offered to me earlier. On the whole I am
leaning towards Giford's view (as I perceive them), but recognise
that you both have far greater expertise on this matter than myself**.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Our_Vanishing_Heritage
** I have since read up on the radiocarbon dating methods so I feel I
at least understand the issues associated with that. There seems to
be a currently unresolved issue regarding the placement of the
Santorini eruption within the records which results in "... a time
difference of ~90 to 170 years exists between two investigations for
the beginning of the 18th Dynasty" (Hendrik J. Bruins, "Dating
Pharaonic Egypt", Science 328, 1489 (2010) - published 18 Jun 2010 -
www.sciencemag.org)


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 138

Noggin the Nog

Hi Tarantoes

Thanks for those thoughts.

<>

It's actually very difficult to keep a subject like this focused (as you'll have noticed), and it's not really possible to keep the two elements above separate. Although it's of interest to look at specific examples of archaeological findings, inscriptions etc that are hard to interpret on the standard model, it tends to lead to a piecemeal approach, and often to ad hoc explanations (also remembering that one generation of egyptologist's ad hoc explanations tends to become the received wisdom of the next), whereas something more systematic is the object here (that is, are th anomalies and difficulties one-offs, or is there a pattern to them?

For example, the Biblical chronology gives a date of about 1450BC for the Exodus. On the standard chronology, this puts it in the period known as the New Kingdom (18th to 20th dynasties, about 1550-1150 BC). The problem is that this is the peak of Egyptian imperial power and prosperity, and stony ground for an Exodus event. We would argue from this that either
1) The Exodus never happened.
Or
2)It happened at a different point in Egyptian history.

Proving (1) essentially entails examining the possibility of (2).

Where in Egyptian history might we look? The obvious places would be the inceptions of the three Intermediate periods. But the First seems too early, and the Third seems too late. And indeed we have, for a number of reasons, been looking at the second (in the standard chronology about 1700 BC).

Without going so far as to claim proof, we have found at this time a social and historical situation that looks a possible contender. Certainly some disaster seems to have befallen Egypt at this time (Papyrus Ipuwer, Manetho/Josephus, and the excess burials thought to be the result of famine and/or Plague at Tell el-Daba (Avaris)). We have also seen that in the period preceding the disaster there was a substantial population of Semitic people at Avaris (later pi-Rameses, the city mentioned in the Bible as the place where the Israelites were held in bondage), and that there was a subsequent invasion by another Semitic people, the Hyksos, who became rulers of lower Egypt, and identified by Vel as the Amalakites, a people that the bible says were encountered by the Israelites in Sinai.

Obviously, if the Exodus is to be redated to the end of the Middle Kingdom, then either Biblical or Egyptian chronology must be in error, and needs to be amended, and the question to be addressed on new hootoo is whether correspondences can be found in the subsequent histories of Egypt and Israel, using Exodus/end of the Middle Kingdom as a point of possible synchronisation.

Noggin



How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 139

tarantoes

Hi Noggin,

have you seen this and can you access it(?)
http://sir.sagepub.com/content/36/1/85.abstract

I haven&#39;t read the paper but it might be worth looking at:

G Hagen, Exodus and settlement: A two sojourn hypothesis, Studies in Religion, March 2007 vol. 36 no. 1 85-10

Abstract:
Although recent scholarship has questioned the very existence of an historical Exodus, a review of the evidence does suggest that a significant number of Asiatic workers did leave Egypt during the late 19th or early 20th Dynasties of Egypt and made their way to the Canaanite highlands via the Sinai peninsula. It is very probable that this event is related to the establishment of numerous new settlements in the Canaanite highlands during the early Iron Age. The suggestion made here is that the numerous conflicts between the biblical and extrabiblical materials associated with this model may be resolved by assuming that migrants split into two distinct groups during this Exodus-Sojourn experience. The larger of these spent very little time in transit and formed the bulk of the population of the Iron I highland settlements. A second, smaller contingent, however, remained in the Sinai for a considerably longer period of time in association with Bedouin tribes in the Arabah. It is this second group to which the emergence of Yahwism may be attributed.


How Credible is Velikovsky's New Chronology?

Post 140

Noggin the Nog

Hi Tarantoes.

I can't access the paper, so I can't judge the quality of any evidence presented, but the Iron I settlements are usually considered to be due to the arrival of the Philistines shortly before Rameses III (early 20th dynasty), and trade and migration across the Sinai seem pretty commonplace, and as well as being a rather late date, it gives no inkling as to why it would give rise to a tale of tribulation and disaster in Egypt, so I'd need some convincing of this hypothesis.

Santorini is more of a puzzle. It *should* be an event that would help to synchronise the different timelines, but fails to do so in either the standard or Velikovskian chronologies. It's tempting to see it as a possible cause for the events of Exodus, but so far no one has demonstrated it.

Noggin


Key: Complain about this post