mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Society for Historical Research
______________________________________________________________________

VELIKOVSKY, FUNDAMENTALISM, AND THE REVISED CHRONOLOGY

by 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 installments till 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 III 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
III unless the necessary sequence was provided.

Also, it seemed to me that Velikovsky was risking 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 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 center of
the Ages in Chaos series. Volume III, _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. Using Biblical
chronology as a guide to the reconstruction of ancient history 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 showing that the histories of Israel and Egypt were out of sync by
some 600 years, he wrote:

"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 jumped 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 an 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 with 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. Overcome by empathy, 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_ personally 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 by generation 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 assumed 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 be translated "king
shepherds," and used as evidence that the Biblical 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 III, 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 center of ancient
civilization. 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 savior of
civilization." 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 meant. Under Velikovsky's revision, ancient Israel -- like
modern Israel -- battles against Arabs in defense 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 the Velikovsky's
_Peoples 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 have
preceded the Hellenistic Greeks: Chaldeans, Assyrians, Late Chaldeans, Medes,
and Persians. Toward the end of the 19th century, excavators recognized that
archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia was not sufficient to justify a
history extending back to the third millennium BCE, when -- according to
Biblical chronology -- high civilizations existed in both Mesopotamia and
Egypt. Scholars realized that either Biblical dating had to be shortened by
many centuries or additional evidence had to be found to support the Biblical
time frame. According to Heinsohn, Biblical chronology eventually won the day
because scholars interpreted the archaeological evidence in a way that made
it conform with Bible stories, stories they presumed to be true. 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
physical 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 "Mitanni"
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 seemed obvious to me 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. Either Heinsohn or Velikovsky
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 recognized that while he
might well 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 favor.

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 it, the more I
had to admit that my interest in Velikovsky's revised chronology was tinged
with a streak of "hidden fundamentalism." Velikovsky offered me 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 first 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 with Velikovsky. But in fact I think it does. It wouldn't be fair
to call Velikovsky a religious fundamentalist, or a theological
fundamentalist. But I believe the evidence shows that Velikovsky 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 an order. It's an order 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 a distressing lack of
evidence that confirms Biblical chronology. Proof 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 historical fact. Velikovsky should have
constantly questioned the 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. He should have realized that no one's history is immune to
disruption. He should have let that realization permeate his work. Instead,
he began with a vision of the truth and followed that vision down a road that
took 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 modern 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 that
there is 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 prayer or 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 defense of the accepted chronology is a defense 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 a mere desk fabrication. Then (Velikovsky)
would have brought Akhnaton down to something like -600. His direction was
right..."

Velikovsky's direction was right, but he was unable to continue in that
direction for the required length of time because it would have forced him to
abandon 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 in advance that the Bible was right. And so -- on one level or
another -- do most of Heinsohn's critics. Hidden fundamentalism is our
greatest single obstacle to an accurate understanding of the ancient world.
______________________________________________________________________

Copyright 1988, 1990 Clark Whelton

Society for Historical Research [1]Hom [2]e

References

1. http://www.interport.net/~henryz/shr.html
2. http://www.interport.net/~henryz/shr.html