Some Serious Anomalies with Conventional Neo-Assyrian Chronology



by

Damien F. Mackey

“There are many ‘anomalies’ in the current chronological/archeological understanding of the synchronisms between Hezekiah and various Kings of Assyria”.

Toby has written: http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1874

Hello all,

I am continuing to review David Rice’s ‘Time and Prophecy’ in regards [to] the period of the Kings in scripture. Inasmuch as Mr Rice’s chronology seems to mirror the popular Thiele, many of these ‘anamolies’ apply to the general consensus.

This posting just deals with the first 6 of the 7 anomalies I’ve come up with in regards to synchronizing Hezekiah, King of Judah, with the Assyrian Kings. ….

Synchronizing Hezekiah with Tiglathpileser (King of Assyria) Shalmaneser (King of Assyria and Babylon) Merodachbaladan (King of Babylon), Sargon (King of Assyria and Babylon) and Sennacherib (King of Assyria and Babylon).

Introduction

There are many ‘anomalies’ in the current chronological/archeological understanding of the synchronisms between Hezekiah and various Kings of Assyria. Most of them, in this discussion have to do with one event, that of the siege of the cities of Judah by Sennacherib which modern chronologists [say] happened in Sennacherib, king of Babylon Year 4 which corresponds to Hezekiah, king of Judah, year 14. In my opinion, modern chronologers fail to recognize that Sennacherib invaded JUDAH twice.

Part I – the 7 anomalies

Anomaly 1

Firstly, in the [British] Museum, there is an ‘inscription’ on a winged bull. Stafford and Jo Anne North write this about it:

"Also in Room 10 are two huge winged bulls, with attendant genies, from Khorsabad, the Palace of Sargon discovered in 1843. An inscription from the stomach of this bull says that King Hezekiah of Judah paid tribute to Sargon. While the Bible does not mention this, it does mention that Hezekiah's father paid such tribute and Hezekiah may have continued that early in his reign. Later, however, he rebelled against Assyria."

--- http://www.oc.edu/faculty/stafford.north/britmus/Tour-2003.htm

However, consider the following scripture:

2Ki 18:13, 14 Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did ---- Sennacherib---- king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.

Here it says that Hezekiah paid tribute to Sennacherib, while the Winged Bull in the British Museum says that Hezekiah paid tribute to SARGON. Certainly, Hezekiah could have paid tribute to both of them.

However, Damien Mackey, in an internet article entitled: ‘A Revolutionary Thesis, Sargon is Sennacherib’ … claims they are one and the same person.

[Mackey. See up-dated: “Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib” https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sen]

Now, scriptures also, in Isaiah 20, refer to Sargon. Could the scriptures refer to the same person with different names? YES! --- such is the case with Tiglathpileser (the Assyrian name) and PUL (the Babylonian AND Assyrian name). Tiglathpileser died only 5 years prior to Sargon’s [accession] to the throne. I’ll cover this in more detail later, but when you read about the next few anomalies, think about how well this would explain the anomalies. ---IF--- you don't like my explanation, then I suggest, you try to come up with an alternate.

I should mention, for now, that the biggest objection to this ‘Sargon = Sennacherib’ theory, is that there is some evidence that Sargon was Sennacherib's father, and further, that when Sargon was killed, Sennacherib ascended the throne. I will later show, that if you trace this back to the source of the evidence, you will see, that the rock inscriptions which supposedly make this claim, do not in fact, even contain the name SARGON; rather, the translators of the text inserted the name SARGON in square brackets, indicating that the name SARGON was not in the inscription, but that they thought he should have been! Here is one example, written in 1936, by Stephen L Caiger D B, and found at:

(http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChXIII.htm)

-----------------------------------------------

"Sargon, however, did not long survive this triumph. He died in 705 BC, as recorded in the Limmu List:

705 BC: ... a soldier entered the camp of the king of Assyria [Sargon], and killed him in the month Abib. And Sennacherib sat on the throne.

(Pinches, op.cit., p.372.) [Sennacherib—Sin-ahe-erba.]"

-----------------------------------------------

Anomaly 2

Secondly, in regards to the 1800 foot long tunnel which Hezekiah dug through limestone to divert the water from the spring called Gihon, Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post Staff Writer, on Thursday, September 11, 2003; Page A03, states:

"Scholars for years thought that Hezekiah ordered the tunnel constructed to secure Jerusalem's water supply in anticipation of the arrival of King Sennacherib's Assyrian armies. Sennacherib, who spent most of his career putting down revolts by peoples conquered by his father, Sargon, besieged Jerusalem but never entered it. Recent excavations have challenged this version of events. These show that Gihon Spring already lay within Jerusalem's battlements when Sennacherib laid siege, so "it's not so easy to know why the tunnel was built, since the water supply was already protected," Stager said. "Everybody figures it had something to do with the Assyrians, but they aren't quite sure what."

Here is what scripture says:

2 Ch 32:1,4, 30 (1) After these things, and the establishment thereof, ----Sennacherib--- king of Assyria came, and entered into Judah, and encamped against the fenced cities, and thought to win them for himself. …(4) So there was gathered much people together, who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much water? …(30) This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David.

The scripture says that Hezekiah built the tunnel and walls AFTER Sennacherib encamped against the fenced cities of Judah; however, the article says: ‘Recent excavations have challenged this version of events. These show that Gihon Spring already lay within Jerusalem's battlements when Sennacherib laid siege’.

Well, which version is correct?

Well, suppose, that Damien Mackey is correct, and that Sargon and Sennacherib are the same person. Well, first, Sargon came to Judah and `encamped against the fenced cities of Judah'. There were several cities in the country called Judah which had walls:

Ezr 9:9 For we [were] bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.

Anomaly 3

Thirdly, according to the chronology of modern scholars, Merodach-Baladan had been dead for at least 9 years when he visited Hezekiah!

Let me explain. David Rice says wrote in Time and Prophecy, Appendix G, page 96:

"(5) Shalmaneser was succeeded on the throne of Assyria by Sargon the same month he died (Tebet, month 10), and on the throne of Babylon by Merodach-Baladan the following Nisan, which the narrative implies began his first year. Merodach-Baladan ruled for 12 years when he was replaced by Sargon. (Grayson 73-75) " pg 96, Time and Prophecy.

Please note, Mr Rice says that Sargon became King of Assyria, the same year as Merodach-Baladan became King of Babylon, then 12 years later, Merodach-Baladan died, and Sargon, in addition to being king of Assyria, became king of Babylon for 5 years. Sennacherib succeeded Sargon. This means, that, in Mr Rice's chronology, Merodach-Baladan died 5 years before Sennacherib Year 1, king of Babylon. Now, 4 years after this (9 years after Merodach-Baladin's death), Mr Rice has Sennacherib, in his Babylonian Year 4, invading Jerusalem on the famous Hezekiah Year 14 – the year Hezekiah got sick. This is a problem for Isaiah, consider:

Isa 39:1 At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered.

Isaiah has Merodach-Baladan visiting Hezekiah sometime after he (Hezekiah) recovered from his sickness. Hezekiah was sick in year 14, and sometime after this, he recovered. The problem is Merodach-Baladan, according to Mr Rice's scheme, had been dead for at least 9 years!

Anomaly 4

All of Sennacherib's [soldiers] were killed, yet somehow Sennacherib took 200,150 prisoners.

Damien Mackey in ‘Sargon is Sennacherib’, quoting Boutflower says that Sennacherib said this:

As for Hezekiah of Judah, who did not submit to my yoke, 46 of his strong walled cities, as well as the small cities in their neighbourhood, which were without number - by levelling with battering-rams and advancing the siege engines, by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breaches, I besieged and captured. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil.

However, scripture says this:

2 Kings 19:25,36 (35) And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they [were] all dead corpses. (36) So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh.

Sennacherib claimed to take 200,150 Judahites captive, yet scripture claims the angel of the Lord killed Sennacherib's 185,000 Assyrian soldiers – "they were all dead corpses". –IF— all of Sennacherib's solders were dead, then how did Sennacherib bring back 200,150 prisoners?

Well, a reasonable explanation, is that Sennacherib invaded Judah twice. The first time, he kicked butt, while his butt got kicked the second time. If the first invasion matches the details of invasion described in the Sargon inscriptions, which it does, then this would lend weight to the idea that Sargon is Sennacherib!

Anomaly 5

Fifthly – Where's the gold?

First, Hezekiah gives Sennacherib all the gold.

2Ki 18:14 And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.

2 Ki 18:15 And Hezekiah gave [him] all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house.

2Ki 18:16 At that time did Hezekiah cut off [the gold from] the doors of the temple of the LORD, and [from] the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.

Then, he shows it to Merodachbaladan!

Isa 39:1,2, 6 (1) At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered. (2) And Hezekiah was glad of them, and shewed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not. (6) Behold, the days come, that all that [is] in thine house, and [that] which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD.

Anomaly 6

Sixthly, too many events occurred in Hezekiah Year 14 = Sennacherib year 4.

As I stated in the introduction, in my opinion, modern chronologers fail to recognize that Sennacherib invaded JUDAH twice. Well, suppose they are correct. Here are some of the events which would have had to happen in that one year.

Sennacherib, along with 185,000 solders, claimed to come to Judah and ‘leveled’ "46 of his strong walled cities" How long would it take to [travel] to ‘level’ one city? Well, say it took two weeks to [travel] from Ninevah to the first ‘strong walled city’, then say it took 3 days to level it; then say, it took 2 days to travel to the next `strong walled city' and 3 more days to level it. You would end up with 2 weeks + 5 days/city * 46 cities = 244 days. Hmmmm… not

likely. Sometime during this [warmongering], Sennacherib sent some messengers to Hezekiah, asking him to surrender, which, Hezekiah politely refused, however, he stripped the temple of gold and silver and gave Sennacherib 30 talents of gold and several hundred talents of silver and quickly began construction of an 1800 foot long, 4 foot wide and 12 foot tall, tunnel through solid limestone. In addition, Hezekiah started construction and repairs on the walls of Jerusalem. All this stress made Hezekiah sick unto death, but he prayed to God, and God said he would live 15 more years and would send a sign such that the sun's shadow would go back 10 degrees Then, Sennacherib, his solders, and his 200,150 prisoners, had to travel 2 weeks back to Ninevah with 200,150 prisoners, drop them off at the local slave market, and travel 2 weeks back to Judah… 272 days. But when they got there, drats, old Hezekiah had finished building his tunnel and put up walls. Hmmmm…. Not likely. Then, they sieged Jerusalem, but the angel of the Lord killed all of his solders, so he traveled two weeks back to Ninevah… i.e. 286 days!!!

In the meantime, according to Isaiah 39, Hezekiah had recovered from his sickness, and the Merodach-Baladan, who had been dead for over 9 years, rose from the grave and paid Hezekiah a visit!

Whereupon, Hezekiah somehow showed Merodach-Baladan all the gold and silver in the temple, which somehow managed to magically reappear. ….

“As Tadmor has observed, such a statement never appears in the titulary of Sennacherib. This omission is surprising since Sennacherib was unquestionably [sic] the legitimate heir of Sargon II”.

Toby has further written:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1893

Greetings all,

I have mentioned several times now, that there is evidence that Sargon and Sennacherib are indeed the same person. I do not claim that their reigns overlapped each other, but I believe that Sargon (the Assyrian name) came to be called Sennacherib … much as Tiglathpileser (Assyrian) came to be called PUL …. I have given evidence from the Eponym and Assyrian King lists; and I have given evidence from scripture.

But there is more.

This part is just a few snippets from … Damien Mackey’s internet article called ‘Sargon is Sennacherib’. It is a fairly long article, but I wanted you all to see at least a couple of his major points. The rest of this section is all from his article:

What had struck me, however, was that Sargon's 12th and 15th year campaigns were worded very similarly to Sennacherib's first two campaigns.

Sargon: "In my twelfth year of reign, Marduk-apal-iddina [Merodach-baladan] and Shuturnahundu, the Elamite ... I ... smote with the sword, and conquered ..."

Sennacherib: "In my first campaign I accomplished the defeat of Merodach-baladan ... together with the army of Elam, his ally ....".

And:

Sargon: "Talta, king of the Ellipi ... reached the appointed limit of life ... Ispabara [his son] ... fled into ... the fortress of Marubishti, ... that fortress they overwhelmed as with a net. ... people ... I brought up."

Sennacherib: "... I turned and took the road to the land of the Ellipi. ... Ispabara, their king, ... fled .... The cities of Marubishti and Akkuddu, ... I destroyed .... Peoples of the lands my hands had conquered I settled therein".

Added to this was the possibility that they had built their respective 'Palace Without Rival' close in time, because the accounts of each were worded almost identically …. Eric Aitchison alerted me to the incredible similarity in language between these two accounts:

Sargon: "Palaces of ivory, maple, boxwood, musukkani-wood (mulberry?), cedar, cypress, juniper, pine and pistachio, the "Palace without Rival"2a), for my royal abode .... with great beams of cedar I roofed them. Door-leaves of cypress and maple I bound with ... shining bronze and set them up in their gates. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which in the tongue of Amurru they call a bit-hilanni, I built before their gates. Eight lions, in pairs, weighing 4610 talents, of shining bronze, fashioned according to the workmanship of Ninagal, and of dazzling brightness; four cedar columns, exceedingly high, each 1 GAR in thickness ... I placed on top of the lion-colossi, I set them up as posts to support their doors. Mountain-sheep (as) mighty protecting deities, I cunningly constructed out of great blocks of mountain stone, and, setting them toward the four winds ... I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, - the (enemy) towns which my hands had captured I sculptured thereon and I had them set up around their (interior) walls; I made them objects of astonishment".

Sennacherib: "Thereon I had them build a palace of ivory, maple, boxwood, mulberry (musukannu), cedar, cypress ... pistachio, the "Palace without a Rival"2a), for my royal abode. Beams of ceda .... Great door-leaves of cypress, whose odour ... I bound with shining copper and set them up in their doors. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which they call in the Amorite tongue a bit-hilani, I constructed inside them (the doors) .... Eight lions, open at the knee, advancing, constructed out of 11,400 talents of shining bronze, of the workmanship of the god Nin-a-gal, and full of splendour ... two great cedar pillars, (which) I placed upon the lions (colossi), I set up as posts to support their doors. Four mountain sheep, as protecting deities ... of great blocks of mountain stone ... I fashioned cunningly, and setting them towards the four winds (directions), I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, the enemy tribes, whom my hands had conquered, dragged through them (the doors), and I set them up around the walls, - I made them objects of astonishment".

……

Conventional Theory's Strengths

(i) Primary

I can find only two examples of a primary nature for the conventional view.

By far the strongest support for convention in my opinion is Esarhaddon's above-quoted statement from what is called Prism S - and it appears in the same form in several other documents as well - that he was 'son of Sennacherib and (grand)son of Sargon'. Prism A in the British Museum is somewhat similar, though much more heavily bracketted ….:

[Esarhaddon, the great king, the mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, viceroy of Babylon, king] of [Sumer] and Akkad, [son of Sennacherib, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria, [(grand)son of Sargon, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria ....

The first document, Prism S, would be enough to stop me dead in my tracks, were it not for other evidences in support of my proposed merger.

The other, quasi-primary evidence is in regard to Sennacherib's accession. One reads in history books of supposed documentary evidence telling that Sargon was killed and that Sennacherib sat on the throne. Carl Olaf Jonsson gives it, bracketed again, as follows ….:

For the eponym Nashur(a)-bel (705 BC) one of the Eponym Chronicles (Cb6) adds the note that the king (= Sargon) was killed, and that Sennacherib, on Ab 12, took his seat on the throne.

What one notices in all of the above cases of what I have deemed to be primary evidence is that bracketting is always involved. Prism S, the most formidable testimony, has the word "(grand)son" in brackets. In Prism A, the entire titulary has been square bracketed, which would indicate that Assyriologists have added what they presume to have been in the original text, now missing. And, regarding Sennacherib's accession, Jonsson qualifies the un-named predecessor king with the bracketted "(= Sargon)".

It was customary for the Assyrian kings to record their titulary back through father and grandfather. There are two notable exceptions in neo-Assyrian history: interestingly, Sargon and Sennacherib, who record neither father nor grandfather. John Russell's explanation for this omission is as follows ….:

In nearly every other Assyrian royal titulary, the name of the king was followed by a brief genealogy of the form "son of PN1, who was son of PN2," stressing the legitimacy of the king. As Tadmor has observed, such a statement never appears in the titulary of Sennacherib. This omission is surprising since Sennacherib was unquestionably [sic] the legitimate heir of Sargon II. Tadmor suggests that Sennacherib omitted his father's name either because of disapproval of Sargon's policies or because of the shameful manner of Sargon's death ....

This may be, but it is important to note that Sargon also omitted the genealogy from his own titulary, presumably because, contrary to this name (Sargon is the biblical form of Šarru-kên: "the king is legitimate"), he was evidently not truly the legitimate ruler. Perhaps Sennacherib wished to avoid drawing attention to a flawed genealogy: the only way Sennacherib could credibly have used the standard genealogical formulation would have been with a statement such as "Sennacherib, son of Sargon, who was not the son of Shalmaneser", or "who was son of a nobody", and this is clearly worse than nothing at all.

That there was some unusual situation here cannot be doubted. And the bracketing that we find in Esarhaddon's titulary may be a further reflection of it. By contrast, Esarhaddon's son, Ashurbanipal, required no such bracketing when he declared: I am Assurbanipal ... offspring of the loins of Esarhaddon ...; grandson of Sennacherib ...".

….

Velikovsky, Thera, Venus and Exodus



by

Damien F. Mackey

“Velikovsky suggested that the traumatic birth of Venus from Jupiter – as given in ancient myth – along with various ravages it ostensibly then wrought within our solar system, might provide an explanation for some of the seemingly miraculous events documented in the Bible around the time of the Exodus from Egypt. These events Velikovsky correlated to the mammoth eruption of Thera … and the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, which he surmised came to be known as the pillar of smoke by day and of fire by night as Moses led his tribe out of Egypt”.

 

Introduction

 

Decades ago I read Dr. I. Velikovsky’s highly controversial book of supposed cometary wars in the celestial sphere, World in Collision (1950). I was initially interested because I had appreciated his biblically-friendly revision of Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt as set out in his Ages in Chaos series, and I had thought that Velikovsky’s notions of catastrophism might also help to explain some of the major biblical events, such as the Exodus and the smashing of Sennacherib’s Assyrian army.  

It was only later, after I had determined that the demise of the massive Assyrian army had nothing whatsoever to do with a Mars-generated catastrophe:

 

Finally, about 800 B.C., Venus nearly collided with the planet Mars. As a result, the Martian surface was devastated and its orbit was disrupted, while Venus settled into a new orbit where it became a planet and no longer menaced the earth.²⁶

Unfortunately, however, the new orbit of Mars now made it a threat to earth in place of Venus. Although the Martian upheavals were not so violent as the earlier Venerian calamities,²⁷ the red planet still succeeded in turning hack the shadow on the dial of Ahaz,²⁸ wiping out the Assyrian hosts of Sennacherib besieging Jerusalem,²⁹ providing phenomena for the striking catastrophes mentioned by several of the Old Testament prophets,³⁰ changing the length of the month and the year,³¹ influencing the outcome of the Trojan War,³² and adding a new war god to the pantheon of many pagan religions.³³

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1973/JASA12-73Newman.html

 

but was entirely set in train by the intervention of the Jewish heroine, Judith (see e.g. my):

 

“Nadin went into everlasting darkness”

 

http://www.academia.edu/7177604/_Nadin_went_into_everlasting_darkness_

 

that I considered Velikovsky to be well off the track on this.

Nor could I find any evidence whatsoever in the books of Moses for an ominous Venusian presence. However, I had entirely forgotten in the course of time that Velikovsky had also linked the Plague and Exodus at the time of Moses to the eruption of Thera (Santorini), which I think may indeed be a plausible scenario – especially as the dating of the vent has recently been revised to an era earlier than the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty.

 

 

Dr. Velikovsky’s novel ‘science’

 

We read a summary account of this controversy at: https://grahamhancock.com/scrantonl3/

 

In 1950, a Russian psychiatrist by the name of Immanuel Velikovsky published a hugely controversial book called Worlds in Collision, in which he posited, based on cross-confirming references taken from texts of a wide range of ancient cultures, that Venus must be a recent addition to our family of planets. In fact, Velikovsky argued, based on his sources, that Venus as we know it must only be around 3500 years old. Moreover, Velikovsky suggested that the traumatic birth of Venus from Jupiter – as given in ancient myth – along with various ravages it ostensibly then wrought within our solar system, might provide an explanation for some of the seemingly miraculous events documented in the Bible around the time of the Exodus from Egypt. These events Velikovsky correlated to the mammoth eruption of Thera around 1500 BC [sic] – at the time of the demise of the Minoan culture and the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, which he surmised came to be known as the pillar of smoke by day and of fire by night as Moses led his tribe out of Egypt.

 

Velikovsky, who was educated in psychiatry by Freud’s famous student Wilhelm Stekel, was a longtime friend and colleague of Albert Einstein and had established himself as a figure on the international scene, partly through his work alongside Einstein and others during the founding of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

His thesis, which was popularized by a highly visible preview article published in Harper’s Magazine, was so very upsetting to the scientific community of the day that a group of leading astronomers, led by Harlow Shapley of Harvard University, launched a campaign to actively suppress Velikovsky’s book. What began first as a letter-writing campaign to the publisher, whose intent was to convince editors at MacMillan and Company to simply drop the book, soon turned into an overt threat by leading Universities to boycott the textbook division of MacMillan if they persisted in publishing it. Despite the financial success of the book (it quickly became a runaway bestseller), pressure from this campaign eventually resulted in the firing of the MacMillan editor who originally signed Velikovsky’s book and culminated in the highly-unusual decision by MacMillan to ultimately transfer its publishing rights to a competitor, one that did not publish textbooks.

In retrospect, it is easy to understand why Velikovsky’s book might have sparked such vehement upset in leading scientists of the day. First, Velikovsky had the audacity when presenting his theory to transgress the unspoken boundaries of several different academic fields – many of them not his own – and had the sheer chutzpah to offer up non-quantifiable references from ancient texts as evidence in support of a radical astronomic theory. Likewise, the very notion that Venus could be younger than billions of years old served to undermine the principle of uniformity – the notion that an unchanging universe has persisted for millions of years- an important concept that underpins Darwin’s theory of evolution. Furthermore, Velikovsky’s viewpoint threatened to resurrect a kind of fire and brimstone religion that modern science had actively worked to supplant for more than a century.

….

From the perspective of the conventional scientific wisdom of 1950, Velikovsky’s thesis was simply outrageous. Events Velikovsky described, such as the ostensible ejection of Venus as a comet from massive Jupiter, its near-miss with the Earth, its direct collision with Mars that, in turn, catalyzed a series of subsequent near-misses between Mars and the Earth, and the eventual rapid circularization of the orbit of Venus as it settled down to become a proper planet, seemed to violate fundamental principles of astronomic science and planetary motion.

Also, each stage of Velikovsky’s scenario for the recent birth of Venus carried with it a number of common-sense eventualities that ran directly counter to then-current beliefs. For example, Velikovsky’s vision of a young Venus (at that time thought by many to be quite Earthlike) implied that the planet must, in fact, still be very hot. Velikovksy’s description of the ostensible roamings of Venus implied that the planet would be found to have an anomalous rotation and/or revolution. Likewise, a young planet should present a markedly pristine surface as compared to other astronomic bodies in our solar system. A close approach of Venus to our moon such as Velikovsky envisions should have imparted magnetism to the moon’s rocks.

While discussing possible effects of theoretic encounters between Venus, Mars and the Earth, Velikovsky made a number of suppositions about the likely chemical composition of these bodies and the effects of likely chemical interactions that are, in my opinion, largely speculative and unquantifiable, and therefore suspect. I relegate these to the status of secondary issues, since they are both difficult to demonstrate and have no direct bearing on Velikovsky’s broader scenario.

There is hardly an argument or observation that has been made, either in favor of or against the controversial astronomic theories of Immanuel Velikovsky that has not been met with seemingly endless counter argument. Emphatic treatises – both in favor of and against Velikovsky’s perspective, and often given as definitive proofs – have been offered up by a long list of often qualified, thoughtful, intelligent commentators. Often these arguments, taken in the context in which they have been given (and sometimes justified to five decimal points) may seem wholly sensible and convincing, and the reader may come away believing that he or she has just unturned the final word on the subject – until, a few months later, some new scientific discovery or fact appears in print that can be seen to agree in some way with Velikovsky’s outlook, and so the monster (once thought dead) again somehow rears its head.

Whole books have been compiled and edited simply to present the wide-ranging arguments that have been offered up by various commentators about Velikovsky’s Worlds In Collision. Consequently, over the course of 60-some years since the book’s original publication in 1950, the subject has grown to encompass a fairly broad range of quite thorny – and often heatedly debated – issues

One popular conception is that Velikovsky’s thesis was put to rest in 1974 at a Symposium held by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco during which a group of leading critics presented papers against Velikovsky’s scenario, with Velikovsky in attendance to answer. Likewise there have been numerous studies made on such wide ranging topics as tree-ring growth, isotope absorption by plants, climate records preserved in coral deposits,ice core studies, moon-rock magnetism, and changes in the magnetic field of the Earth, each again offered up as definitive proof for or against some aspect of Velikovsky’s thesis.

Given all that has been written against Velikovsky, it might seem reasonable to approach the subject from the perspective that his Venus theories must be wrong. However, the moment we adopt this stance, we begin to meet with a number of sometimes intractable difficulties. The first and most obvious involves the long and still-growing list of eventualities that are frequently cited in ostensible support of his theories. Contrary to expectations, Venus has turned out to be hot (hot enough at its surface to melt lead), its surface is surprisingly pristine, its rotation is anomalous, it does exhibit rotational resonance with the Earth, and so on. Our perspective against Velikovsky’s viewpoint would require us to conclude that considerations of this kind must then be the product of coincidence. But if our intent is to be fair, the longer this list of coincidental facts grows, the more intractable a credibility problem we eventually create for ourselves. Just how much recourse to compounding coincidence are we willing to tolerate before we effectively undercut our own viewpoint? The same is true for the many aspects of Venus study that might be interpreted as supporting Velikovsky’s outlook but for the proposal of some newly-anointed theory that effectively distances the new finding from him? I have often said that Velikovsky could be wrong, but if so, then he surely must be counted among the very luckiest researchers to have ever published, given the sheer number of controversies that seem to continue to fall in his favor. ….

 

More solid, in my opinion, would be Dr. Velikovky’s assertion that the effects of the Theran volcanic catastrophe could have produced the kind of phenomena described in the Book of Exodus: http://www.hermetics.org/exodus.html

 

Ages in Chaos:

The Exodus: The True Story of Moses and the Pharaoh According to Velikovsky

 

By Kemal Menemencioglu

 

According to the post presented below: “The theory that the Thera eruption was the source of the plagues described in the Book of Exodus, was first forwarded by the Egyptologist Hans Goedicke during the early 1980's, and has since become one of the most widely accepted explanations for the events of the Exodus in modern biblical scholarship”.

 

The struggle of Moses with the Pharaoh of Egypt, who was also his brother; the deliverance of his people from slavery; the ten plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea are related in sacred texts full of miraculous events. It is an integral part of the religious beliefs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But what can we make of it in this scientific age with its precise chronology of history? Immanuel Velikovsky in his book written half a century ago, “Ages of Chaos”, has offered striking and ingenious solutions. He has presented challenging scientific explanations, which convincingly solve historical puzzles. Some recent historians have revived this thesis supported with new evidence.   

Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) was born in Russia to a Jewish family. He graduated from the University of Moscow majoring in ancient history and sociology, he also received a degree in medicine, and later studied psychiatry in Vienna under Wilhem Stekel a pupil of Sigmund Freud. Later he studied cosmology, astronomy, geology, mythology, sacred literature and combined these disciplines to rewrite history in a series of astonishing books. His most important theory was that there have been a number of major catastrophes that have shaped the course of history. However, due to what he termed “collective amnesia”, the fact that people tend to push unpleasant event into their subconscious, these events have been forgotten. Science has also tended to ignore these catastrophes, for the same reason, even though they have left signs everywhere. Modern research has tended to confirm that these catastrophes have indeed occurred. One example is the discovery of huge meteor craters in Iraq dated to 2300 B.C. This is now believed to have caused the decline of major civilization in the Near East and to have triggered a dark age that lasted for centuries. It is believed that the Israelites migrated to the more hospital Nile delta at the end of this era. After some time a new Pharaoh who had forgotten the period when Joseph was vizier enslaved the Israelites.        

According to the Pentateuch / Torah the Exodus occurred in 1447 B.C. and since Ramses was mentioned. It was assumed that Ramses II was the oppressive Pharaoh of the Exodus. Gigantic monuments of Ramses’s time fortified this view in the eyes of Victorian scholars. It was assumed that the Exodus must have occurred during his time (1279-1213 B.C.). However, there is no historical evidence to support this view. Nor is there any sign of the catastrophic period mention in the Pentateuch. Ramses is also mentioned during the time when Joseph was vizier. But this was hundreds of years before the Exodus. For this reason it has been reasonably assumed that Ramses is merely a generic term and that another Pharaoh was in power at the time. Both Velikovsky and the historian David Rohl in his book “A Testament of Time” have designated the Pharaoh of the Exodus as Dudimose of the 13^th Dynasty. ….

According to the Pentateuch, because the Pharaoh did not release the Israelites from bondage, Egypt suffered a series of ten plagues. These were: 1)   Rivers and water sources turned into blood; 2) Frogs 3) Lice; 4) Flies; 5) Disease and death of Livestock; 6) Boils; 7) Hail mixed with fire; 8) Locusts; 9) Darkness; 10) Death of the first born.

An important argument set forth by Velikovsky involves the papyrus of Ipuwer placed into the Leiden Museum in the Netherlands in 1828. This papyrus appears to relate events that occurred in the early ages of ancient Egypt. According to academicians it contains riddles or prophecies, however it openly relates a number of catastrophes that befell Egypt. The Nile turning to blood, the waters being undrinkable, the death of animals, the sky becoming dark, fires, earthquakes, hungry and destitute Egyptians are among these. If Velikovsky is correct then it disproves the contention that there is no trace of the events related in the Pentateuch recorded in Egyptian history.   

The Eruption of the Santorini volcano in the Aegean Island of Thera was believed to have occurred at that age. Geologists have given such diverse ages as 1638 B.B. and 1360 B.C. for this catastrophe. Velikovsky claims that a chain of volcanoes exploded causing the plagues of Egypt. The Santorini explosion is known to have caused such radical changes such as the end of the Mycenaean civilization. It was many times more powerful than the eruption of Karakatoa in 1883, which [shook] the world and caused 35 thousands deaths. …. The Santorini eruption was believed to have been a thousand time more powerful than a nuclear bomb. In the Pentateuch, it is mentioned that there as pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night to guide the Israelites in their journey. Velikovsky believes that the Sinai mountain, which is volcanic, erupted and as volcanoes appear to be pillars of smoke by day and pillars of fire by night, this would explain this enigmatic reference.

 

According to Velikovsky and recent theories, such volcanic eruptions would explain the darkness, and hail and lightning are known to accompany volcanic explosions of great magnitude. On a recent event, a river in America turned red. With the poisoning of waters, frogs and other amphibian reptiles would roam the land. Later they would die to create flies and lice, which would spread boils and disease. Recent discoveries of mass graves from this period in the Avaris region tend to confirm the theory of a plague.  

How then can we explain the parting of the Red Sea? Velikovsky suggests that the Israelites crossed the shallow Sea of Reeds. An earthquake triggered by the eruptions caused the waters to fall back, and then to rush back to swallow the chariots of the Pharaoh. 

[Velikovsky’s] claim that there are faults in standard excepted Egyptian chronology and that there is shift of a few hundred years is confirmed by a number of modern revisionist historians such as David Rohl. Rohl like Velikovsky offers hundreds of pages of evidence to support this claim. Other scholars have claimed that most of the Old Testament, including the stay in Egypt, Exodus, the fall of Jericho, the Temple of Solomon are works of fiction. Rohl’s answer to this claim is that the wrong period in history is sought for archeological evidence. If they went a bit further back all the evidence is there.    

Great catastrophes when the Exodus occurred would have resulted in major migrations. According to both Velikovsky and Rohl, the Hyksos conquered Egypt shortly after the Exodus. Egyptian historians call these people the “Amu”, and both authors claim that they are the same as the Biblical Amalekite hordes which the Israelites fought with and prevailed over. They were also called the Hyksos or [Shepherd] Kings, and according to Manetho, they conquered  Egypt without resistance. Their rule which was described as cruel and destructive ended after a few hundred years after which they were driven off by [Ahmose] I of the Southern Upper Egypt kingdom, which was free from their rule. ….