Veronica Kristine Olaussen on the Problems of the Conventional Chronology

Taken from: JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(1) 2009

[Comment: The AMAIC does not consider that David Rohl, whose chronology Veronica Olaussen says below "may not be completely correct", has by any means discovered the correct model for a revised history, though he has made some very significant contributions in this regard].

Viewpoint

How convincing are the arguments for a
new Egyptian chronology?

Veronica Kristine Olaussen

The Conventional Chronology (CC) links up with the Bible in the person of Pharaoh Shoshenk I, who is identified with the biblical Shishak. But David Rohl holds that the CC does not fit with other parts of the Bible. If the CC is followed, there is a huge gap, a ‘dark age’, where there should be evidence for Hebrew history. On the other hand, Egyptology professor Kenneth Kitchen, who is a firm supporter of the CC, accepts no clash. He states that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’.1
The CC is based on the king list as compiled by the Egyptian priest Manetho, and additionally what Rohl identifies as ‘four pillars’. Rohl claims that there are compelling anomalies in the CC, as well as serious weaknesses in at least three of the CC’s four pillars. However, according to Chris Bennett, these anomalies alone are no basis for a completely new chronology; to be certain about the distant past is difficult. Some of what is presented on popular television as ‘undisputed fact’ appear after all to be based on questionable assumptions. Rohl’s New Chronology may not be completely correct, but the weaknesses he documents in the CC show that the
conventional wisdom regarding the ancient Egyptian timeline merits re-examination.

....

JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(1) 2009
61

PDF Version of King Hezekiah Thesis Now Accessible On-line

Sydney University Thesis:

"A Revised History of the
Era of King Hezekiah
of Judah and its Background",

by Damien F. Mackey,

now accessible at:

http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

Conventional Sothic Interpretation an Obstacle to Chronology

Taken from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/sothic_theory.asp



...


Current chronology

It should be noted that things chronological have not changed much to this day, for N. Grimal gives that very same year of 1479 as the first year of Thutmose III’s reign.²⁴ Grimal’s date too, of 1785 BC for the close of Egypt’s 12^th dynasty, is completely Sothic. ‘Feelings that border on panic seize scholars who trust the Sothic theory when doubt is cast upon it’ wrote David Down, adding that:

‘[Professor] Lynn Rose quotes Sir Alan Gardiner as saying, “To abandon 1786 BC as the year when Dyn XII ended would be to cast adrift from our only firm anchor, a course that would have serious consequences for the history, not of Egypt alone, but of the entire Middle East (JNES 94-4-237)”.’²⁵

But not only has Meyer’s ‘erste sichere Datum’ (first sure date) of 4240 BC long since been abandoned—with c. 3100 BC now favoured as the beginning date for Egyptian dynastic history—even his second Sothic date of 2780 is looking shaky. As P. O’Mara has correctly stated, this figure of 2780 has been re-worked frequently because of what he calls ‘numerous technical complexities, with varying results ranging from 2781 BC to 2772 BC’.²⁶

What is quite firmly held to this day by historians is the third ‘Sothic’ date, c. 1320, for the ‘Era of Menophres’. Grimal’s recent figure of 1295–1294 BC, for instance, is not so very far removed from 1320.²⁶ And this, despite the fact that as early as 1928 ‘ … it was obvious that Meyer had by then completely discarded the Menophres theory’,²⁷ by moving the 19^th dynasty forward somewhat from his original date. That many Egyptologists have continued to be far from comfortable with this received chronological structure is apparent from the testimony of the renowned Sir Alan Gardiner:

‘What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters.’²⁸

Nevertheless, it was also Gardiner who—as we saw above—had warned of the consequences of abandoning the Sothic anchor dates.

Conclusion

The Sothic theory has absolutely bedevilled efforts to establish proper synchronisms throughout antiquity, especially when it is considered that the chronology of the other nations is usually assessed with reference to Egypt. In reference to my thesis on the Sothic cycles (Ref. 5), Dr Grognard remarked: ‘It is important to show the weaknesses or errors in our understanding of a theory in order to leave our minds free to think of a more acceptable alternative’ [emphasis added]. This should be taken as an encouragement for the reconstruction of Egyptian chronology.

....

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background / by Damien F. Mackey

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

Libraries Australia
A revised history of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its background / by Damien F. Mackey
Author
Mackey, Damien F
Subjects
Hezekiah King of Judah.
Available from
NSW
The University of Sydney. University of Sydney Library.
Call Number(s)
.b36447754; fhrb
sbdp.iniGettingTab("32020380", "32020380");
Versions / Editions
versions:
1 (out of 1)Expand all / Collapse all
Title / Author, Edition
Date
Language
Format
Locations
A revised history of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its background / by Damien F. Mackey.
393, 106, xxxiii leaves : ill.
2007
English
Thesis
1
Title
A revised history of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its background /​ by Damien F. Mackey.
Author
Mackey, Damien F.
Other Authors
University of Sydney. Dept. of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies.
Published
2007.
Physical Description
393, 106, xxxiii leaves : ill.
Subjects
Hezekiah King of Judah.
Notes
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Research) to the Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies in the Faculty of Arts.
Degree awarded 2009; thesis submitted 2007.
Thesis (M. A.)--University of Sydney, 2009.
Bibliography: leaves [xiii]-xxxiii.
Language
English
Libraries Australia ID
44300270
Record ID
NBD44300270
Contributed by
Libraries Australia
Available from
NSW
Buy a copy
All
Books, Journals, Magazines, Articles...
Pictures and Photos
Australian Newspapers (1803-1954)
Diaries, Letters, Archives...
Maps
Music, Sound and Video
Archived Websites (1996-now)
About People and Organisations
Search
Available online
Australian content
In my libraries
No Tags for this work

Add a tag Public Private login Add tag
Separate multiple tags with a semicolon test cricket; Perth (WA)
Contributors
Libraries Australia
A revised history of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its background / by Damien F. Mackey
Author
Mackey, Damien F
Subjects
Hezekiah King of Judah.
Available from
NSW
The University of Sydney. University of Sydney Library.
Call Number(s)
.b36447754; fhrb
sbdp.iniGettingTab("32020380", "32020380");
Versions / Editions
versions:
1 (out of 1)Expand all / Collapse all
Title / Author, Edition
Date
Language
Format
Locations
A revised history of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its background / by Damien F. Mackey.
393, 106, xxxiii leaves : ill.
2007
English
Thesis
1
Title
A revised history of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its background /​ by Damien F. Mackey.
Author
Mackey, Damien F.
Other Authors
University of Sydney. Dept. of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies.
Published
2007.
Physical Description
393, 106, xxxiii leaves : ill.
Subjects
Hezekiah King of Judah.
Notes
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Research) to the Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies in the Faculty of Arts.
Degree awarded 2009; thesis submitted 2007.
Thesis (M. A.)--University of Sydney, 2009.
Bibliography: leaves [xiii]-xxxiii.
Language
English
Libraries Australia ID
44300270
Record ID
NBD44300270
Contributed by
Libraries Australia
Available from
NSW
Buy a copy

Arabs in Jerusalem in Era of King Jehoram of Judah

Highlighting the Background to the History of the Time of Jehoram, King of Jerusalem (853-841 BC). by Damien Mackey The Amazing Story of Arabs in Jerusalem

Old Arabic Phrases of the Islamic Period The Story of Job The Story of the Death of Holofernes"

"Moreover the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabians, that were near the Ethiopians; and they came up into Judah, and brake into it, and carried away all the substance that was found in the king's house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there was never a son left to him save Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons." 2.Chronicles 21:16-17

There is no question that we find Judah here in a dangerous state. As Peter James wrote, that the situation for Judah was so dangerous and on the verge of collapse is

"amply reflected in the desperate letters of Abdi-Hiba, full of pleas to his Egyptian overlord [Akhnaton] for the troops needed to defend his fiefdom" `Let the king ... my lord, send troops of archers, for the king has no hands left.' El Amarna Letter #286

EA 288 is most useful for the geographical information it supplies. James wrote:

"Abdi-Hiba defines the extent of the revolts against his authority: `Let my king take thought for his land ... is lost; in its entirety it is taken from me; there is war against me, as far as the lands of Seir and as far as Gath-Carmel (Gath-Carmel and Seir Edom are almost certainly Gath, one of the 5 old Philistine capitals, and possibly the same as Libnah)' ... From EA letter 289 we learn that Gath-Carmel was now in the hands of Tagu, an ally of Milkuli of Gezer: "Behold the land of the town of Gath-Carmel, it belongs to Tagu ..."

James regarded this letter 289 as a complaint of Jehoram to the pharaoh that all his subject territories from Edom to Philistia had revolted against him. Two questions come to mind:

1. 2.

Did the Arabians attack together with the Philistines? or was one group responsible for the sacking of Jehoram's palace, and the other for invading Judah? Who were these Arabians that were near the Ethiopians [Cushites]? 2.Chronicles 22:1 is concerned with the succession after Jehoram and suggests that it was the Arabs, rather than the Philistines, who were responsible for the looting of Jehoram's palace and the murder of his sons.

"Then the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest..."

It could be that the clipped account here has run together the actions of the Philistines, in invading Judah, and the Arabs, in sacking Jehoram's palace, its brevity obscuring the distinction between the two. We know from literary and archaeological records that there were Arabian colonies in Ethiopia. What better description could the chronicler have used then to write `the Arabians that were near the Cushites (Ethiopians).' In conventional history, Egypt was a separate state from Ethiopia during the time of Jehoram, and was ruled by the Libyan pharaoh Takeloth II, who conducted no military campaigns into Palestine. Is it credible that a band of Arab raiders, coming from Cush, worked their way through his Libyan kingdom and into the heart of Judah? Or that a band from south-eastern Arabia were so far from their homeland and somehow in a position to plunder the king's palace? The synchronized chronology solves this problem entirely, and makes good sense out of the biblical narrative. Amenhotep III was the ruler of Ethiopia as well as Palestine. .. After the suppression of a revolt in his 5th year, the south of Egypt was at peace, and Amenhotep was able to construct two massive temples near the 3rd Nile cataract. Troops were conscripted by him in Ethiopia and these were used in Palestine, as we know from the letters of Rib-Addi of Gubla:

"If the heart of the king, my lord, is in favour of Gubla, then let my lord send 400 soldiers and 100 people of the Kasi lands that they may protect Gubla, the city of my lord."

The term `Kasi' is acknowledged to mean `Cush' or `Ethiopians'. These Arabians than were conscripts of the Egyptian army stationed in Palestine. It now remains to examine the EA letters of Abdi-Hiba for an account of a Philistine invasion, coupled with a sack of his palace by rioting troops from the `lands of Kasi', in order to leave no doubt that Jehoram of Judah was Abdi-Hiba of the EA letters. EA 287 describes the Philistine invasion in which Milkilu of Gezer and Tagu of Gath-Carmel, supported by the people from the lands of Ashkelon and Lachish, invaded Abdi-Hiba's kingdom and `caused their troops to enter the town of Rubutu'. EA 290 describes a later stage of their advance, when they were joined by the rebel Shuwardata of Keilah. - - The account of Jehoram of Judah in the Bible is found in 2.Kings 1:17; 8:16-20; 2.Chronicles 21: 1-20. The account of Jehoram, son of Ahab of Samaria, is found in 2.Kings 1:17; 3:1ff; 9:24; 2.Chr. 22:5-7.

"They rushed troops of Gezer, troops of Gath and troops of Keilah: They took the land of Rubutu; the land of the king went over to the `Apiru people.'"

According to the letter even Jerusalem itself came under grave threat. The Moabites did not reach Jerusalem. But the royal palace was looted during Jehoram's reign, EA 287:

"With reference to the Nubians [Kasi], let my king ask the commissioners whether my house is not very strong! Yet they attempted a very great crime; they took their implements and breached ... of the roof. If they send into the land of Jerusalem troops, let them come up with an Egyptian officer for regular service. Let my king take heed for them - for all the lands are impoverished by them - and let my king requisition for them much grain, much oil and much clothing ... the men of the land of Nubia have committed an evil deed against me; I was almost killed by the men of the land of Nubia in my own house. Let the king call them to account. Seven times and seven times let the king, my lord, avenge me."

View of Gath many years ago

The impact this striking biblical incident had upon conventionally bound scholars can be seen from this reference by James: A commentator on 2.Chronicles 21:17 could hardly believe the Biblical claim that the Arabs `that were near the Cushites' had actually sacked Jehoram's palace:

" `This curious verse can hardly signify that the Arabians took and plundered Jerusalem' ..

But the letters of Abdi-Hiba confirm that this was actually done by the `men from the land of Kasi'. Evidently they had been stationed in Jerusalem as a garrison, but their Egyptian master had neglected to supply them with provisions, and they took to plundering... `for all the lands are impoverished by them.' Their looting of Abdi-Hiba's palace was evidently part of a concerted plan of the Philistines, timed to coincide with their own invasion of Judah.'" Interestingly enough a south Arabian name monograph was found on at least three locally (Jerusalem) made pottery sherds in which on one of the sherds the letter `lamed' was combined twice with the letter `khet' to create the monograph shown. Thus the name can be read as `khll'. [BAR, Mar/Apr 1988, p. 22] If these sherds are sufficient evidence to place at some, so far unknown period of time, ancient Arabian people into Jersualem the reader can decide. But our story shows they could have been there in the middle of the 9th century BC. The same distinctive circumstances could not have befallen two different kings of Jerusalem, separated in time one from the other by some 500 years, one described in the EA letters and the other in the scriptures. Bibliography 1. See Peter James article, `The Dating of the El Amarna Letters,' SIS Review (Society for Interdisciplinary Studies), Vol. II, No. 3, (London, 1977/78), pp. 80-85. 2. Horst Klengel (Berlin), `Das Land Kush in den Keilschrifttexten von Amarna', p. 227-212.

Return to Submenu Crawl out of this tomb

Book of Sirach Testifies to Isaian Authorship of Later Chapters of Book of Isaiah

Authorship of Isaiah

In spite of the lack of concrete evidence that any part of Isaiah ever existed without any other part as far back as the 200’s BC, the dogma of most scholarship today is that two or more individuals authored Isaiah. This perspective arose, most notably in the deistic[1] climate of 18th century Europe. J. C. Doederlein, one of the earliest to argue for a second author,[2] said explicitly that since Isaiah could not have forseen the fall of Jerusalem, the 70 year captivity, the return or Cyrus, Isaiah could not have written those chapters making such claims (e.g. chapters 40-66). Since this time, others have advanced arguments in support of dual or even multiple authorship.

Others have argued for one author, Isaiah. See e.g. the AMAIC's own arguments at http://bookofjonah.blog.com/

C. 190 BC (conventional dating), Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) refers to Isaiah as having comforted the people and predicted the future (Sirach 48:24; Isa.40:1/61:1,2). This is an ancient testimony of full Isaian authorship.

Thesis: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah: Libraries Australia

Full View - Australian Library Collections

For this record:

Record Id:	44300270 (Australian Library Collections) permalink
Author:	Mackey, Damien F.
Title:	A revised history of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its background / by Damien F. Mackey.
Published:	2007.
Description:	393, 106, xxxiii leaves : ill.
Notes:	Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Research) to the Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies in the Faculty of Arts. Degree awarded 2009; thesis submitted 2007. Thesis (M. A.)--University of Sydney, 2009. Bibliography: leaves [xiii]-xxxiii.
Subjects:	Hezekiah King of Judah.
Other Authors:	University of Sydney. Dept. of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies.
Want to contact your library about this item?:	Find contact details
Libraries that have this item:	The University of Sydney. University of Sydney Library (NU) (.b36447754) fhrb

For this record: