KTU 1.78 Misdated by Rohl for Akhenaton
- From: "larswilson" <wilsonl035@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 17:25:52 GMT
Hello Jonathan, you definitely need to be updated on this since you focus on
the KTU misapplication by David Rohl. I have had a bit of experience with
my research in asstronomical texts and my interpretation would reflect the
EGYPTIAN influence here.
This should be considered since Ugarit was under Egyptian suzrainty at this
time and the Egyptians focussed on syncrestic adaptation in their empire and
their astronomy program was far more advanced than at Ugarit and thus the
influence would be have been adoptive. But note, based upon your posted
previous discussion how this text works out as far as Egyptian context.
Here are my comments...
=================
Bruce in Blue while Rohl is in Red
Ahh, gidday David (Rohl)!
Thanks for the invective. It reminds me of the tone of someone on a
Saturday night in the public bar after having lost his shirt at the
races.
To get to the kernel of your complaint, you say:
We understand the phrase 'The day .... was put to shame' as
a solar eclipse.
Well, I obviously don't.
"The day of the new moon of Hiyaru was put to shame at sunset,
with Rashap as her gate-keeper."
There is no preposition in the text to indicate "at" and there is no
word to indicate this "sunset". We have a verb [`rbt] meaning
"entered" (from [`rb] = "to enter").
>>Wilson: Here I agree, this simply means entered. Thus the SUN ENTERED HER
>>GATE.
And what is the "her" referring
to in your translation? It is only relevant if we have a second
sentence in which $p$ is what is referred to. Literally we have "went
in (the) sun her gate Rashap." (And even the significance of Rashap
here is problematical, though I think most punters go for the planet
Mars as the equivalent of the god.)
>>Wilson: This is where Egyptian influence comes in. "Reshep" was an
>>Assyrian god adopted into the Egyptian pantheon. It is important where
>>they placed this god. But note, Reshep was an Egyptian God as well and
>>thus if this were an Egyptian-influenced text from an astronomical point
>>of view, which is valid for the Amarna Period since Egypt was of more
>>influence than Assyria or Babylon at this point, then the Egyptian
>>reference to Reshep is much more relevant. In Egypt, Reshep was called
>>the "Lord of Heaven" or the Bull of Heaven and depicted as a bull with
>>tassles in his crown and that is a reference to the zodiac sign of the
>>"Bull of Heaven", namely Taurus!!
Since the zodiac reference is far more likely a reference in defining an
eclipse event besides the date and time, assigning Reshep to Mars is nearly
contraindicated. The only issue, therefore, is the relevance of a "Reshep"
reference for the dating of this event in Yyrau, and that checks out. That
is, yes, the sun was in Taurus at this time of the year and thus during this
eclipse.
////seems to have been put to shame in our
text, not directly the sun, so the Isaiah text is not a close
parallel. What we have is a second sentence explaining how the day
was put to shame.
>>Again, I agree. If the SUN or MOON themselves are 'put to shame'
>>indicating an eclipse, that's one thing. But the "day" of the eclipse
>>being put to shame as Rohl claims is a stretch and not consistent with
>>this reference. In fact, it's problematic. Why wasn't this more direct
>>as in the Bible or general concept? That is, it would have been much more
>>direct to simply note the "un was put to shame". Why use the entire "day"
>>to make a reference to something more easily stated?
...You continue:
It is true that tt (without the b) can also be read as the
numeral 'six' (as with van Soldt and Pardi) but I fail to
see what sense this makes in the context of the rest of the
KTU-1.78 text.
Just so that you know, David, the b is a preposition and the Ugaritic
b++ (I'll use a + for an emphatic t) can be the equivalent of the
Hebrew b$$, "on the six(th)", so the text could read, "On the sixth,
the day of the moon of Hiyaru" (a translation arguing for a solar
calendar!?), but I haven't supported this.
>>Again, this is where lack of Egyptian expertise in astronomy comes in.
>>The Egyptians began their day at Midnight and as well had a concept of an
>>HOUR, unlike any other culture at the time. In fact, our 12-hour day
>>comes from them! Since the "day of the new moon" is already indicated, a
>>reference to "day 6" here would be redundant. Thus indeed, "sixth" is the
>>reference here, but not to the day of the month but to the HOUR OF THE
>>ECLIPSE. Thus 6th day of the new moon Yyaru
is the equivalent of the hour, day and month reference given here in its
most direct reference. When "sixth" is applied to the hour of the eclipse,
of course, it greatly limits the options for dating this event and even
might pose a problem astronomically if there are no candidates for an
eclipse event during the "sixth hour" which is between 5am and 6am. Of
course, it works out there is no problem with this at all for the 1375BCE
dating which did occur between 5am and 6am, and thus the "sixth hour"!!
This text has numerous pitfalls that your translation covers, but you
write:
Bruce claims that the translation of the tablet published in
JACF and A Test of Time does not represent a proper reading
of the text. So what does?
I'm sure you are aware of the literature on the text. Does anyone
agree with your translation? The short answer of course is "no".
No-one seems to agree with the phrase "at sunset" where there is a
verb in the text. This is because the text literally reads "the sun
entered".
>>>Again, I agree here. "Sunset" is totally an invention of necessity on
>>>the part of Rohl.
And you follow with:
Has he offered us his translation?
Well, no. There are a number floating around. Let's use one of them?
I have said that the text contains a number of pitfalls. Is `rbt $p$
+grh the sentence, "the sun entered her door"? It's possible -- the
notion of the doors of heaven are nothing new --, but what do we do
with r$p ?
>>Again, Egyptian astronomy is completely being ignored here as if
>>nonexistent. In this regard, association with the SUN and GATES is
>>affirmative!!! The Egyptians considered the travel of the sun during the
>>night to be into the godDESS Hathor and this travel was through 12
>>"gates", the entry through the last gate being a critical one of rebirth
>>of the sun. In fact, that would have been the symbolic reference of a
>>sunrise, the Sun entering through the gate of Hathor every morning. Thus
>>the SUN ENTERING THROUGH HER GATE, is simply a reference to the sun
>>rising!! "Her Gate" is the Gate (vulva) of Hathor.
As far as Reshep is concerned here, again, it is simply noted as a reference
to the zodiac contellation associated with this eclipse. Thus the second
sentence here of the "sun rising through her gate in Reshep" simply means
the sun rose in Reshep, that is, the Sun Rose in Taurus.
Thus the true reference of this text basically is this, a reference to an
eclipse that occurred the 6th hour of the day of the new Moon of Yyaru; the
Sun rose in Taurus.
This is also an interesting comparison since the eclipse was already in
progress when the sun rose, making it necessary to associate the sunrise
reference here (the sun entering through Hathor's gate) a confirmation of an
eclipse already in progress.
That is, astronomically speaking, had the eclipse occurred during the day,
it would be noted that the elcipse occurred while in Taurus. Normally,
there would not be a a need for a reference to the sunrise. But since the
eclipse was already in progress, the adapted reference is to the sun's
position at the earliest observation during the eclipse, which was at
sunrise.
But this also confirms that the "btt" reference to "sixth" would be to the
sixth hour!
---I know my limitations, David. No, I won't offer a new
translation, but I've shown you a few of the problems, I think enough
to say that your translation cannot be supported. If you need a
translation, let's use a conventional type one:
The day of the moon of Hiyaru was put to shame: the sun
went in, (with) her gate(keeper), Rashap [Mars?].
>>Again, the above translation is not the best nor truest to the text
>>itself. One reason is because "btt" (sixth) is the first word. Thus this
>>first line should simply, again, be "sixth, day of new moon, Hiyaru"
>>meaning an eclipse that occurred at the sixth hour, day of the new moon in
>>Hiyaru.
Line 2 should simply be the "Sun entered her gate in Reshap" meaning the Sun
entered the gate of Hathor, a reference to sunrise in Reshep which is the
Egyptian reference to Taurus, the final translation being "The sun rose in
Taurus" in the context of an eclipse already in progress at sunrise.
Any problems with this? At the same time, can you show me where in
the text the phrase "at sunset" is?
The rest of your post doesn't need much response.
I am really getting pretty fed up with the
level of intellectual dishonesty I am sometimes
seeing from Barbi Bruce.
I challenge Bruce to produce an alternative
translation of his own which bears a modicum
of respect for reasonable interpretation and
expectations of reality
Not a load of nonsense about...
It is much more about the fact that Bruce should
have the bald front to pronounce that we are
'using translations that don't represent the text'.
Bruce either does not know what he is talking
about or he is quite frankly trying to pull the
wool over the eyes of the non-academic NC list-members.
As I say Bruce, time you stopped your sniping
and came up with some work of your own to support
your wilder claims. If you can't do that, then I
suggest you take a hike. Gidday! (sic)
(This last gets a <grin>!)
An adequate flame. Now that you've got it out of your system, if you
promise not to do it again, can we kiss and make up?
Avagoodone.
Bruce.
FINALLY, there is one more application of ancient astronomical expertise
that is ignored. And that is the fact that on the reverse side of this
tablet is a liver reading!!! Those familiar with astronomical texts,
though, know that the nature of the elcipse itself was read specifically for
an omen. Basically an eclipse can begin near the top, middle or bottom of
the sun. These areas were assigned to different regions or principalities.
The beginning of the eclipse was considered a NEGATIVE for that region,
obviously, since it is blotting it out. The exit of the eclipse on the
opposite side was considered a positive.
Thus it is quite puzzling that you would need a liver consultation in
connection with the eclipse event which itself was read for specific omen.
That is, unless the very beginning of the eclipse was missed and it was
unclear exactly where it began! In that case, a liver would logically be
consulted to see if the eclipse was a bad omen for Ugarit or not.
In this context, a very advanced context of this tablet therefore, the
presence of a liver reading in connection with an eclipse, would suggest the
beginning of the eclipse was not observed,that part which was concerned with
the negative aspect of the omen. Note that the context of the reading was a
definite "negative" context.
Thus when the entire context of what we know about ancient astronomy and
Egyptian astronomy is applied, the KTU 1.78 becomes clearly an
Egyptian-influenced text with no problem associating the entry of the sun
through "her gate" as a reference to an Egyptian sunrise, or the reference
to Reshep as the "Lord of Heaven" and a referece to Taurus, or the reference
to "btt" as the "sixth" a reference to the Egyptian HOUR of the eclipse, all
these references completely harmonious with an eclipse event already in
progress between 5AM and 6AM with the sun rising in Taurus during this month
and having missed the specific beginning of the eclipse, a liver consulted
regarding the negative nature of the eclipse for Ugarit.
DATING THE KTU 1.78 CORRECTLY:
Having noted the above, the KTU now becomes an EXTREMELY SPECIFIC eclipse
reference, limiting the event to the specific HOUR of an eclipse. When this
is compared with Rohl's dating and the dates available for this eclipse,
therefore, it totally eliminates the 1012BCE event. But as noted, the
1375BCE eclipse is an absolute match since it did occur between 5am and 6am
and was in progress at sunrise.
Dating year 12 of Akhenaton to 1375BCE is also no problem since he was
generally dated during this time period anyway, in fact, this would only
move is year 12 back about 9 years earlier which is negligible since his
dating was a general, relatively chronology reference anyway based upon
other challenged references. Again, though, Akhenaton was already dated to
this period conventionally so dating the eclipse to 1375BCE for year 12 of
Akhenaton will no disturb this area of the chronology for the Amarna Period
s does Rohl's.
Finally, it should be noted that if Year 1 of Akhenaton is dated to 1386BCE,
it agrees with critical dating of the Exodus by two other independent
sources!!! That is, 1386BCE had already been established for the date of
the Exodus. Akhenaton's connection with the Exodus would be that he
experienced the ten plagues and this is truly what influenced him to dismiss
the false gods of Egypt and worship a single God of power and creation whom
as well insisted on having no image made of himself, which is the essential
tenents of the Jewish god YHWH and reflect the very direct laws from the Ten
Commandments relating to idolatry, those being (1) No other gods, and (2) no
physical image to be made. Akhenaton's social reforms and religious focus
are quite consistent with the pharoah who ruled immediately after the
Exodus.
The other indepedent dating for the Exodus in 1386BCE are (briefly, just for
your reference):
1. The Assyrian Eponym List Eclipse is misdated to 763BCE and correctd to
709BCE. These two eclipses are part of a series of eclipses that allow for
predicted solar eclipses in the same region, exactly 54 years and one month
apart. In the series that would have been seen in Assyria, 817-763-709BCE,
the 817BCE and 763BCE eclipses would have allowed for the 709BCE eclipse to
be predicted and thus would have been a major social event, just as Thales
predicting an eclipse became famous. That's one reason for dating the
elcipse in 709BCE.
Obviously though, if this eclipse occurred in the third month of Simanu,
then 763BCE is an optional dating for month 3. This is because sometimes
the first month of the year began before the spring equinox as part of the
choice of introducing intercalary months during certain years. This is why
sometimes the year varied in various cultures. Case in point, this very
year where Christians, using a strict interpretation of the celebrating
Passover/Easter after the spring equinox, conflicts with the Jewish dating
which occurs a month later based upon their Metonic calendar. In this
regard, it should be noted that, indeed, if you date year 763BCE to month
three then 709BCE is the second 'month three" for this eclipse. But int he
series, you'd have 817 in month one, 763 and 709BCE in month 3, rather than
817 month one, 763BCE month two, and 709BCE month three which allows for the
prediction of the third eclipse.
Considering that, when 709BCE is used for redating that all-important
Assyrian eponym, it downdates all events connected with it by exactly 54
years. Thus the battle of Qarqar moves from 853BCE to 799BCE and more
importantly the invasion of Shishak currently dated to 925BCE becomes
871BCE. This allows us to date the 5th of Rehoboam to 871BE which was year
39 of Solomon since there was a 6-year corulership between Solomon and
Rehoboam before the actual division of the kingdoms and takeover by Jeroboam
after Solomon's death a year later. That means that Shishak invaded Israel
and Judah while Solomon and Rehoboam were still in control and thus the
Northern Kingdom fortresses were actually still "Judean" cities. This
invasion thus helped to weaken the control of Rehoboam allowing for
Shishak's friend, Jeroboam, to establish himself in the northern kingdom.
Thus Shishak did not attack his own friend Rehoboam when he attacked the
norhtern cities but helped to free from from Rehoboam. Having noted that,
though, with the end of Solomon's rule in 870BCE, the temple in his 4th year
would have begun in 906BCE, 36 years earlier. Based upon that dating, the
Exodus is dated to 1386BCE, 480 years earlier (906+480=1386).
JUBILEE DATING: This is a bit more "esoteric" as a reference but is around.
Purely a religious application suggesting that major events relating to
either returning to land, coming out of bondage or reclaiming land occurs in
conection with a jubilee, which is the 50th year following a 49-year period,
but also the 1st year of another 49-year period, which is a week of weeks
(7x7).
Major Jewish jubilees would be their return from Babylon and their
reestablishment in Israel in 1947 as well as the Exodus. The revised dating
for the 1st of Cyrus is 455BCE based upon the Messiah being baptized in
29CE, 483 years later. This is a chronology adopted by Martin Anstey and
some preterists including Phillip Mauro, as well as some others. That being
the case, the 1947 restoration of Palestine to the Jews is exactly 50
jubilees from 455BCE, and 1386 BC falls on a jubilee period of 19 jubiles
earlier. 19 jubilees is 931 years, 19 x 49. 931 plus 455 is 1386BCE.
Again, this is not "evidence" but application, but still has chronological
consequences. Those following this esoteric reference to the jubilees would
thus date the Exodus to 1386BCE and use the redating of the Assyrian eponym
event as support for that doctrinal theory, etc. Provided for your
REFERENCE only here. The KTU 1.78 dating of the 1st of Akhenaton to
1386BCE, of course, becomes the second archaeological reference that sould
harmonize the Exodus to 1386BCE.
In passing, please again note that Akhenaton was already dated around this
period so there is no archaeological consequence for dating the KTU 1.78
eclipse to 1375BCE, but as well, Solomon's buildings at Jerusalem fares much
better with his rule ending in 870BCE rather than 60 years earlier in
930BCE, he being considered to have arrived to early for when the
archaeologists are dating the buildings he claims to have built. Of note,
the buildings did show up but currently dated during the reign of Omri the
end of whose reign is conventionally dated to 870BCE. So again, you gain
arcaheological-Biblical harmony when you down date Solomon to 910-870BCE!
All this suggests the real problems are not with the Bible or archaeological
dating, but with revised records from the Persian Period or
misinterpretation of surviving astronomical texts without regard to all
information currently available.
Thanks for your consideration...
Larry Wilson
Here is some information regarding the revised/corrected Biblical timeline I
roughly compiled.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: KTU 1.78 Misdated by Rohl for Akhenaton
- From: cmccraw
- Re: KTU 1.78 Misdated by Rohl for Akhenaton
- Prev by Date: Re: The Holy Shroud
- Next by Date: Re: The Vinland Map's Ink
- Previous by thread: CORRECTED ASTRO-CHRONOLOGICAL TIMELINE FOR NEAR EAST
- Next by thread: Re: KTU 1.78 Misdated by Rohl for Akhenaton
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
