text.skipToContent text.skipToNavigation

Revisiting Velikovsky An Audit of an Innovative Revisionist Attempt von Aitchison, J. Eric (eBook)

  • Erscheinungsdatum: 06.09.2016
  • Verlag: Vivid Publishing
eBook (ePUB)
9,51 €
inkl. gesetzl. MwSt.
Sofort per Download lieferbar

Online verfügbar

Revisiting Velikovsky

Eric Aitchison's long and in-depth study is basically his way to reconcile the conventional model of ancient history with the 'Ages in Chaos' series of Velikovsky. He has been extremely thorough in his research and came to the conclusion that although Velikovsky used Biblical dates as anchors for his broad-brush realignments and alter egos, a closer analysis of the Biblical parallels was possible and so much so that even the limmu list supported Assyrian King List could be adjusted and re-evaluated in the context of a revision of chronology - such as the actual date for the fall of Samaria. In fact, this e-book makes a number of arguments that strongly refute some of Velikovsky's most famous synchronisms - in fact, quite a lot of them. I can't at the moment think of any other revisionist that has taken on and demolished so many of Velikovsky's arguments - and yet at the same time he remains positively on board the Velikovsky experience. He ends up with a system that is in so many ways pro-Velikovsky and yet at the same time is quite unlike all the major players in revisions of ancient history post-Velikovsky. The Glasgow chronologists dismissed the second and third volumes of 'Ages in Chaos' en bloc. Somewhat later, first James and then Rohl (and cohorts), went on to abandon the first volume of 'Ages in Chaos' - the book that set it all in motion. Another group of revisionists moved in the opposite direction shifting not just dynasties but whole blocks of history forward in time, en-masse. Eric Aitchison, on the other hand, with input from A Montgomery, B Curnock, J Crowe, L Mitcham, J Lascelles and latterly D K Mills has actually remained extraordinarily faithful to the core of 'Ages in Chaos' and they have all of them treated Velikovsky's research with the utmost respect and admiration.

Produktinformationen

    Format: ePUB
    Kopierschutz: AdobeDRM
    Seitenzahl: 200
    Erscheinungsdatum: 06.09.2016
    Sprache: Englisch
    ISBN: 9781925515947
    Verlag: Vivid Publishing
    Größe: 11948kBytes
Weiterlesen weniger lesen

Revisiting Velikovsky

BIBLICAL HISTORY IS SOLID and BELIEVABLE

Introduction 1

In dealing with what I eventually perceived as errors on the part of Immanuel Velikovsky 2 I found that Biblical History is solid enough to support any major historical revision of Near Eastern Ancient Times as attempted over 50 years ago by that investigator. New readers might be shocked to realise that far from being ignored, his arguments have continued to receive active interest from a wide-ranging group of professional and amateur students of Ancient History, especially that of Biblical History.

My colleague, Alan Montgomery, in a privately circulated article on Philistine Pottery, made this penetrating comment.

"The first problem with this scenario is the failure to synchronize with biblical history. The biblical history of the Israelites, unlike Egyptian history, is written with one generation following another, one ruler following another. From Abraham to the fall of Jerusalem, there is not a single generation of leadership missing. There is no place for gaps."

In his early 1950's attempt Velikovsky tried to write a Biblical history that contained parallel Egyptian historical information wedded to the Biblical information. Assyriologists and Egyptologists were able to virtually ignore these chronological writings of Velikovsky because the Astronomic Fraternity had denigrated his first book, " Worlds in Collision " 3 . Wrong though Velikovsky was in his historical revision that whole subject is still open for debate because anomalous correlations are being found as fine-tuning of history progresses. The recently released (2000) Oxford history has reduced the XVIIIth dynasty from 1575 BC (Gardiner) to 1550 BC but continues to see Shoshenq of Dynasty XXII as the Shishak of the Bible. There are many that still think Velikovsky is correct, others who think he was nearly correct; each argues their case eloquently. There are many scholars from Academia who believe that Velikovsky's theories have sufficient content that they should be taken seriously. There have been, since the publication of " Ages in Chaos " and " Worlds in Collision ", quite a number of International Conferences that have highlighted errors and correct predictions from the Velikovsky genre. Such is the current enthusiasm for his work and its study that the British contingent (SIS) has issued a CD ROM 4 with as much pertinent information as is thought fit to allow meaningful study. Across the world is a dedicated group 5 who have continued to look critically at the original historical revision of Velikovsky and its ramifications. The most credible part in my opinion is that area that concentrates on the accuracy and integration of Biblical history into the milieu of the Fertile Crescent. My own research is here presented in the public arena to ensure that my theory of where Velikovsky erred has the widest exposure.

There are many and varied attempts to support or denigrate the historical chronology of the Bible. Those wishing to support the historical content are drawn from the wide spectrum of belief. Some are Biblical Fundamentalists, being those who believe the literal reading of the Bible with no concessions to error. Others are believers in the truth of the Bible for its faith concept but choose to see the history as something to be taken with a grain of salt. This historical approach can best be evidenced by competing chronologies, of which there are many. The one I favour after researching Biblical reign lengths is that by Edwin Thiele. Thiele accepts that there are areas of concern between the Biblical evidence and other evidence that has come down to us from a time before certain sections were written into the Bible. This qualification has to be noted against the interlocking Biblical evidence of kings.

There would appear to be two basic approaches to Biblical History and in

Weiterlesen weniger lesen

Kundenbewertungen