Velikovsky, Fundamentalism and the Revised Chronology
                                       
Clark Whelton

   In the summer of 1977 I spent a day at Immanuel Velikovsky's home in
   Princeton. We sat in the living room and talked about history. Peoples
   of the Sea had just appeared in print. Velikovsky was brimming with
   optimism. By following volume I of his "Ages in Chaos" series with
   volume V, and leaving the middle three instalments until last, he
   intended to establish and secure the perimeter of his revised
   chronology. There were both advantages and risks to this method.
   Jumping to the end of the series allowed Velikovsky to champion a
   radically lowered date (4th century BCE) for Ramses m without having
   to demonstrate a logical sequence of events beginning where volume I
   left off (the end of the 18th dynasty, ca. 840 BCE). The principal
   risk was that critics would be loath to accept such a startling
   displacement of Ramses m unless the necessary sequence was provided.

   Also, it seemed to me that Velikovsky was asking for the same kind of
   trouble that plagues the chronology of ancient Greece. The history of
   Greece is written in opposite directions. We follow the trail of
   evidence from classical times backward until it fades out in the 7th
   and 8th centuries BCE. At the same time we track the development of
   the Mycenaean period (conventionally anchored in the 2nd millennium
   BCE by archaeological ties to the 18th dynasty) forward until it fades
   out in the 12th and 11th centuries BCE. Because these converging
   histories fail to converge, the resulting gap is called a "dark age."
   It occurred to me that Velikovsky, by sandwiching his revision between
   the unbending bookends of volumes I and V, might be inviting similar
   problems. As it turned out, a "dark age" does exist in the centre of
   the Ages in Chaos series. Volume m, The Assyrian Conquest, still
   hasn't seen the light of day.

   In the summer of 1977, however, I shared Velikovsky's optimism.
   Nevertheless, I couldn't help wondering why, instead of jumping
   forward, he didn't simply continue down the trail that began so
   promisingly in volume I. After all, his principal guide was Biblical
   chronology and the guide had apparently served him well. Hadn't the
   true identities of Shishak and the Queen of Sheba emerged from the
   mists of history? I'd come to accept Velikovsky's method completely,
   and believed what he said in Ages in Chaos. On page 99, after
   carefully

   Whose history is to be moved by these centuries? Is it possible to
   place (King) David in the sixteenth century before this era? No
   student of ancient history will see the slightest possibility of
   altering the history of the kings of Jerusalem by a single century,
   much less by six, without disrupting all established data and
   concepts. The Biblical annals record the succession of the kings of
   Judah and of Israel, king after king, and give the years of their
   reigns. If there are, here and there, some discrepancies or
   difficulties in the double account of the kings of Judah and Israel.
   they are of an entirely different dimension, and may amount at most to
   one or two decades, but not hundreds of years.

   In spite of this persuasive statement and the apparent success of
   volume I, it still wasn't clear why Velikovsky had skipped ahead 500
   years in Peoples of the Sea. Had the Biblical guide gone astray? As we
   discussed this question, I mentioned something that had been said to
   me by a historian from New Jersey.

   "You've got to be careful with Ages in Chaos," he cautioned. "It's
   obvious that Velikovsky is personally involved with the history of
   Israel. He's very much aware of the implications of his work for
   modern Israel. I think he has a special interest in having things come
   out a certain way."

   Velikovsky's eyes blazed in anger. "In other words," he snapped, "this
   man is calling me a liar."

   I tried to explain that I didn't think such an accusation was being
   made, but Velikovsky got up, walked across the room, and picked up a
   Bible. Barely in control of his emotions, he said: "I will read you
   something." He turned to Jeremiah 52, the story of Israel's rebellion
   against Nebuchadnezzar. As King Zedekiah tried to escape from besieged
   Jerusalem, he was captured near Jericho and taken before
   Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah.

   "The leaders of Judah were killed on the spot," Velikovsky said. "But
   Zedekiah, the last Hebrew king to sit on the throne of David, was not
   so lucky. His sons were slaughtered in front of him, and then his eyes
   were put out. They took him alive to Babylon, so that for the rest of
   his days his last sight would be his children dying in agony."
   Velikovsky's eyes filled with tears. Zedekiah's pain was his own.
   Overcome, he had to leave the room. When he returned he pointed to the
   Bible and said, "This is the history of my people. About the
   Scriptures I do not tell lies!"

   Later we went to a diner on Route 1. While we ate lunch Velikovsky
   discussed the current political situation in Israel. A debate was
   raging over whether or not to return the Sinai to Egypt. I asked his
   opinion. "They should return part, but not all," he said.

   "Why do you say that?"

   "You have read Ages in Chaos. You know that the historical borders of
   the Israel of David and Solomon were the Euphrates in the north and El
   Arish in the south. We are in El Arish now. To give up historical
   borders would be a mistake."

   The words of the historian from New Jersey came back to me at that
   moment. Clearly, Velikovsky was involved in both the ancient and
   modern history of Israel. But if he had a hidden agenda I couldn't see
   it. His revised chronology was based on solid research and established
   principles of scholarship. His heavy reliance on Biblical history made
   sense because the Bible was just as he described it, a
   generation-bygeneration account of ancient times, the only such text
   in existence. Abandoning the Bible as a guidepost would indeed
   "disrupt all established data and concepts." At the time it didn't
   occur to me that Velikovsky was methodically disrupting all
   established data and concepts in Egyptology, the keystone and fulcrum
   of ancient history. Under Velikovsky's revision, the Bible would
   assume this pivotal role.

   Several weeks later I interviewed Cyrus Gordon, the great philologist
   and professor of Hebrew studies, in his office at New York University.
   I asked Dr. Gordon about Velikovsky's suggestion (A. in C., p. 69)
   that the unusual Hebrew phrase "evil angels" (Psalms 78:49) should
   really be translated "king shepherds," and used as evidence that the
   Amalekites were the Hyksos. Gordon called Velikovsky's idea "a
   brilliant emendation," but expressed strong doubts about the overall
   accuracy of his revised chronology. First, he questioned Velikovsky's
   identification of the "Prst," who fought against Ramses m, as the
   Persians. Gordon supported the accepted view that the "Prst" were
   Philistines.

   "The distinctive 'Prst' helmet is pictured on the Phaistos disk from
   Crete," he said. The disk is conventionally dated to the 2nd
   millennium BCE. "But there are larger issues. You have to understand
   that Velikovsky has a particular vision of the Hebrew role in history.
   Do you know where Velikovsky says the Amalekites-Hyksos came from?"

   "From Arabia."

   "Yes. Barbarians from Arabia conquer and oppress Egypt, the centre of
   ancient civilisation. They rule Egypt with great cruelty until their
   capital city is conquered and sacked by...?"

   "By King Saul."

   "Yes. Under Velikovsky's revision, Israelites are not only exonerated
   of the charge that they themselves were the Hyksos, but Israel also
   throws out the Arab barbarians. Israel becomes the liberator of Egypt
   and the saviour of civilisation." He paused. "Do you see what I'm
   getting at?"

   "Yes, I think so." I did think so. I thought Gordon was saying exactly
   what he said. But the implications of his words had escaped me
   completely. It wasn't until February 1988, when I met Dr. Gordon at
   Roger Wescott's home and we talked about the points we'd discussed 11
   years before, that I suddenly understood what he was saying. Under
   Velikovsky's revision, ancient Israel -- like modern Israel -- battles
   against Arabs in defence of its borders and the values it upholds. The
   significance of the earlier struggle illuminates the present one.

   This conversation with Cyrus Gordon came at a crucial moment in my
   ongoing effort to evaluate Velikovsky's revised chronology in light of
   later research. Although I'd come to have strong doubts about
   Velikovsky's People of the Sea and Ramses II and His Time, the
   intriguing identifications and parallels in Ages in Chaos had
   continued to hold my attention. But I also found myself convinced by
   the relentless logic of Gunnar Heinsohn's sweeping and radical
   reconstruction of Mesopotamian history. Heinsohn points out that until
   1868, five major empires were known to precede the Hellenistic Greeks:
   Chaldeans, Assyrians, Late Chaldeans, Medes, and Persians. Toward the
   end of the 19th century excavators recognised that Mesopotamian strata
   groups were not sufficient to justify a history extending back to the
   third millennium BCE, when -- according to Biblical chronology -- high
   civilisation existed in both Mesopotamia and Egypt. Either Biblical
   dating had to be shortened or additional evidence had to be found to
   support the Biblical time frame. According to Heinsohn, Biblical
   chronology eventually won the day because scholars brought the
   archaeological evidence into line with what they assumed to be the
   truth. They did it by doubling the five known empires to 10: Early
   Sumerians, Old Akkadians, Neo-Sumerians, Old Babylonians, Kassites,
   Mitanni, Assyrians, Late Chaldeans, Medes, and Persians.

   However, curious things occurred when this new chronology was applied
   to the evidence. Archaeological remains for such well-known people as
   the Chaldeans dwindled to virtually nothing, while the Early Sumerians
   -- "unknown to even the most brilliant scholars of antiquity," to
   quote Heinsohn -- were suddenly discovered to have built a flourishing
   empire. Similarly, physical evidence for the previously-unknown 2nd
   millennium BCE "Mittani" assumed a prominent place in the textbooks
   while the 1st millennium Medes -- who are mentioned repeatedly by
   other ancient nations and authors and who were co-conquerors of the
   Assyrian Empire -- became archaeological shadows. The newly-found "Old
   Babylonians" of the 2nd millennium ascended to fame and glory while
   evidence for the mighty Persian Empire of the 1st millennium couldn't
   be found at all.

   It quickly became obvious that if Heinsohn was right Biblical history
   was in peril. For a while I was hopeful that both sides could be
   accommodated by a synthesis of the competing chronologies. But when
   Heinsohn withdrew his support for Velikovsky's 9th century placement
   of the Amarna period, and moved this key epoch of Egyptian history
   down to the end of the 7th century BCE, it was obvious that hope of a
   compromise was gone. There was no way to shift Saul, David, Solomon
   and the Queen of Sheba to the 7th century and keep the accepted
   chronology of the Bible intact. Somebody was wrong.

   On the emotional level, I supported Velikovsky. I found (and still
   find) his revised chronology to be both satisfying and reassuring. On
   the levels of scholarship and reason, however, Heinsohn carried the
   day, even though I found myself resenting his work. Nevertheless, I
   recognised that while he might be wrong on specific points, his
   brilliant breakthrough in Mesopotamia had compelled a radical
   shortening of the histories of Egypt and Israel, whether I liked it or
   not. Synchronisms established by the Amarna letters convinced me that
   the end of the Late Bronze Age had to come down to the last years of
   the 7th century BCE. And yet I couldn't put my doubts aside, until
   testimony from another source finally tipped the balance in Heinsohn's
   favour.

   Yehoshua Etzion is a violinist with the Jerusalem Symphony and an
   amateur historian with a solid understanding of archaeology. From what
   I know of his forthcoming book The Lost Bible, I can tell you that
   Etzion will be making a major contribution to our understanding of
   stratigraphy in the land of Israel. Of particular importance will be
   Etzion's revelations about the Iron Age, and where to look for Persian
   strata, which are missing not only in Mesopotamia but in major sites
   in Israel, as well.

   In early 1988, during an exchange of letters with Etzion, I asked him
   what he thought of Heinsohn's revised chronology. He expressed serious
   doubts about Heinsohn's revision as it applied to Israel. Etzion had
   found Biblical chronology to be a reasonably accurate guide for
   archaeological research. In one area, however, he showed support for
   Heinsohn's work. Based on evidence from Israeli stratigraphy, Etzion
   described Heinsohn's late placement of the Amarna period as "very
   promising."

   "In fact," he told me during a visit to New York, "I might even place
   it later than Heinsohn."

   I asked how he could back Heinsohn in this important area and support
   Biblical chronology at the same time. "My book is based on
   archaeology, not Bible studies," he replied. "You must always keep in
   mind that there is a great difference between archaeology and Bible
   studies. Also, when it comes to understanding the history of the Bible
   you must always beware of hidden fundamentalism."

   Hidden fundamentalism. It was a term that Etzion used several times in
   our correspondence and again during our meetings in New York. The
   words struck home. I'd been trying to get at the source of my
   lingering resentment toward Heinsohn's work, and gradually it became
   clear. I was angry with him because he was undermining Biblical
   history.

   Now, I am not what is usually called a "religious" person. I'm not an
   atheist, but I don't attend religious services except on special
   occasions, and only then to make someone else happy. I would resent it
   mightily if anyone called me a "fundamentalist." But the more I
   thought about my interest in the revised chronology, the more I had to
   admit it was tinged with a streak of "hidden fundamentalism." The
   revised chronology was a way to get my religion in secular doses
   without having to swallow it whole.

   Velikovsky was keenly aware that his work is closely connected with
   religious sentiment. Opponents of Worlds in Collision accused
   Velikovsky of pandering to fundamentalist faith by attempting to prove
   that the miraculous events of the Scriptures had a basis in historical
   fact. Velikovsky was amused by accusations of fundamentalism because
   he'd been hailed by a society of British atheists for proving that the
   so-called miraculous events of the Scriptures were nothing more than
   natural disasters on a global scale.

   I had long since come to the conclusion that Velikovsky was not a
   religious fundamentalist because he demonstrated a repeated
   willingness to question the literal truth of Bible stories. For
   example, on page 32 of Ages in Chaos Velikovsky casts doubt on the
   statements in Exodus that "all of the firstborn and only the
   firstborn" were killed on the last night of the Exodus plagues
   "because events can never attain that degree of coincidence. No credit
   should be given to such a record." In Worlds in Collision Velikovsky
   also cautions his readers to seek the correct interpretation of
   Scriptural passages and not to take them literally.

   So if my intense interest in the revised chronology can in fact be
   traced to feelings of hidden fundamentalism, it would appear that none
   of this has anything to do with Velikovsky. And yet -- despite
   appearances -- I think it has a great deal to do with Velikovsky. It
   wouldn't be fair to call Velikovsky a religious fundamentalist, or a
   theological fundamentalist. But he is a chronological fundamentalist.
   He accepts the later chronology of Biblical history as literal truth.
   On page 76 of Ages in Chaos Velikovsky weighs the evidence for
   determining the length of the Hyksos period and concludes that
   Biblical chronology is correct. This is the pattern for his entire
   post-Exodus revision.

   In retrospect, Velikovsky's chronological fundamentalism should not
   surprise anyone who rereads the paragraph from Ages in Chaos I quoted
   earlier.

   Whose history (Israel or Egypt) is to be moved by (six) centuries?..
   No student of ancient history will see the slightest possibility of
   altering the history of the kings of Jerusalem by a single century,
   much less by six...

   That last sentence is not a statement. It's a command. It's a command
   which many of Velikovsky's admirers still follow devotedly. But
   there's no real reason why they should. Who says that "No student of
   ancient history will see the slightest possibility of altering the
   chronology of the kings of Jerusalem"? Many scholars have proposed
   such alterations. Books have been written on the subject.
   Archaeologists have long noted the distressing absence of strata that
   confirm Biblical chronology. Unambiguous evidence that David and
   Solomon were real people is missing altogether. Velikovsky should have
   begun by questioning Biblical chronology, by stating that Biblical
   dating may or may not be accurate, or may be partially accurate. Bible
   stories are not archaeology. They are stories, which may or may not
   contain elements of historic fact. Velikovsky should have constantly
   questioned various dating schemes while applying his method of drawing
   literary parallels between the histories of Egypt and Israel.

   But Velikovsky didn't take this cautious approach. He saw no reason
   to, because altering Biblical chronology by more than "one or two
   decades" would "disrupt all established data and concepts." A man who
   made a career out of disrupting the established history of the ancient
   world should have been more careful: no one's history is immune to
   disruption. He should have let that realisation permeate his work.
   Instead, he began with a vision of the truth and followed that vision
   down a road that led him astray. He never succeeded in piecing
   together the complex puzzle of ancient chronology. And yet his courage
   and leadership made possible the breakthroughs that came later.

   Did Velikovsky have a hidden agenda? Was he deliberately manipulating
   the evidence as he shaped his revised chronology? I don't think so. I
   found Velikovsky to be open and honest. It's true he was passionately
   involved in the history of Israel, past and present. In my opinion,
   however, Velikovsky was motivated not by a desire to deceive, but to
   believe. If he had a hidden agenda, it was hidden from himself, as
   well.

   The final irony is that Velikovsky, who so eloquently showed us how
   catastrophist fears became uniformitarian certainties in the age of
   Newton, was part of the Newtonian age himself. When the comforts of
   geocentric theology collapsed, Newton re-established the shaken tenets
   of religious faith on the terra firma of science. Velikovsky tried to
   shore up the shaken chronology of the Bible, a chronology that had
   been challenged by Egyptologists and by a lack of archaeological
   evidence. Like Newton, Velikovsky sought validation of the Bible
   through modern scholarship and secular proofs.

   Today, in the light of Gunnar Heinsohn's discoveries, we are coming to
   see that the accepted chronologies of both Egypt and the Bible are
   wrong. As we gain a more accurate understanding of ancient chronology,
   religious and social customs derived from the Scriptures are being
   subjected to increasing pressure, just as they were in Newton's time
   when we gained a more accurate understanding of the solar system. I
   doubt that Biblical chronology can stand against the strength of
   Heinsohn's reconstruction. But whatever the fate of the Bible as a
   historical document, the central message of the Scriptures will
   endure. It will endure because the human predicament endures. We live
   on a dangerous planet. The Bible -- on its most basic level -- tells
   us there's survival value in believing we're not powerless in the face
   of disaster.

   In Worlds in Collision (p. 189), Velikovsky mentions the Snohomish
   tribe on Puget sound. According to tribal legend, there was a time
   when the sky was so low people couldn't stand erect. They attempted to
   lift the oppressive clouds by shouting "Yahu!" at the heavens. We
   can't be sure what kind of calamity the tribe had been struck by. It
   could have been anything from a foggy winter to a global upheaval.
   Whatever it was, we know the tribe survived because the legend
   survived. We may also speculate that if the disaster was severe
   enough, some tribes ceased to exist as social units. Why do some
   groups survive a catastrophe while others perish? Luck plays a role,
   of course. There's nothing like being at the right place at the right
   time. But those who survive physically must also survive
   psychologically. Under conditions of chaos, hopelessness and despair
   are the greatest threats to psychological survival. The Snohomish
   tribe fought against despair by shouting at the sky. Other tribes and
   nations tried (and still try) their own kinds of communication with
   the heavens. Sometimes a prayer or a chanting was used, sometimes
   human sacrifice. Rules and rituals were established. The Bible is a
   complete source book on our efforts to control the sky by controlling
   ourselves.

   In his Mesopotamian reconstruction Heinsohn demonstrates that textbook
   chronology has been decisively influenced by Biblical dates for
   Abraham. In effect, therefore, a defence of the accepted chronology is
   a defence of the Bible in all its historical and psychological
   complexity. Those of us whose interest in ancient history was inspired
   by Velikovsky may not be aware of the extent to which a seemingly
   secular subject has been affected by hidden fundamentalism. Heinsohn
   has written that Velikovsky would have discovered the true chronology
   of the ancient world "if only he had understood that the Greek 'dark
   age' did not last 500 years but 700 years, with the Thucydides-derived
   date of -776 being a mere desk fabrication. Then [Velikovsky] would
   have brought Akhnaton down to something like -600. His direction was
   right..."

   His direction was right, but he was unable to continue in that
   direction for the required length of time because it would have meant
   abandoning Biblical chronology. The Bible is the greatest
   catastrophist document of all time, a handbook for survival, an
   antidote to despair. That should be enough for anyone. It's a mistake
   to ask more of the Bible than the Bible can give. Heinsohn, to a
   greater extent than his critics, has been able to free himself from
   preconceptions about the Bible and look at the archaeological evidence
   as it actually exists. Velikovsky never gained that perspective
   because he believed the Bible was right. And so -- on one level or
   another -- do most of Heinsohn's critics. Hidden fundamentalism is the
   greatest single obstacle to an accurate understanding of the ancient
   world.
     _________________________________________________________________

   \cdrom\pubs\journals\aeon\vol0106\049fund.htm