No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2024
The promulgation and reception of the late Dr Immanuel Velikovsky’s theories constitute one of the most fascinating episodes in the history of ideas. He made revolutionary proposals about the recent history of the solar system, celestial mechanics, and palaeontology, from 1950 onwards; the immoral and irrational response by leading members of the scientific establishment (whom David Stove described in this connection as a ‘despotic and irresponsible mafia’) has been well documented. But Velikovsky himself set most store by his historical reconstruction. Three volumes have appeared so far, Ages in Chaos, Ramses II and his Time, and Peoples of the Sea. Further material, on the Assyrian Empire and the so-called ‘Dark Age’ of Greece, is still to be published.
I would like in what follows to say something about Velikovsky’s historical reconstruction, and why, in my opinion, for all the firmly-established assumptions which it overturns, it ought to be taken seriously.
It was the difficulties about dating the Exodus, which are well-known to Old Testament scholars, which provided Velikovsky with his initial hint. It has been generally agreed that this event occurred at some time during the ‘New Kingdom’ of Egypt, dated from 1573 B.C.; the difficulty is in establishing precisely when. Not only is there no reference to the Exodus in any known Egyptian document, but the very state of Egypt, under strong Pharaohs, and with Palestine under its control, seems to render the course of events described by the Bible impossible. The result of all this is that a range of dates from the sixteenth century right down to the twelfth has been suggested for the Exodus by modern scholars.
1 Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered, by the Editors of Perisee (New York 1976), 11, 5Google Scholar.
2 The Velikovsky Affair, ed. Grazia, A. de (London 1966Google Scholar).
3 London 1953, 1978 and 1977 respectively. I shall refer to these as AC, RT and PS in the following notes.
4 AC v; Exodus ix, 3, 23–4 and x, 22.
5 AC 49–50.
6 AC 76.
7 Ibid.
8 AC 77–8, 86–9; chapters III and IV.
9 AC chapters VI, VII and VIII.
10 RT ix.
11 RT 53–5, 59.
12 RT x–xi, 204.
13 RT 99, 133–4, 137–8.
14 PS 55. C.T. Selman remarked on the ‘resemblance’ of Ramses III's ‘peoples of the sea’ to the Greeks.
15 PS 6–9.
16 PS 33–4.
17 PS 47–52. In the Papyrus Harris, Ramses III actually refers to a place called ‘Atika’, which H. Breasted, the recognised authority on ancient Egypt, calls ‘an uncertain region, which is probably in the Sinai peninsula’ (PS 66).
18 PS 45–7.
19 PS 33.
20 PS 59.
21 PS 110–17.
22 PS 163–176.
23 PS 135.
24 Crawford, O.G.S., Man and his Past (London 1921), 72Google Scholar; quoted Velikovsky, ‘Astronomy and Chronology’ (Pensee. Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered (IVR in subsequent references) IV (1973), 38).
25 Velikovsky, ‘A reply to Stiebing’, IVR VI (1973), 40. For similar light on Amos as thrown by the Ugarit material, see Craigie, Peter C., Ugarit and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids 1983), 71–4Google Scholar.
26 Velikovsky, ‘Scarabs’ (IVR VI, 42–5).
27 RT, 154–5. The excavator was R.S. Young.
28 RT 65–8, 72, 80.
29 Israel M. Isaacson, ‘Carbon 14 dates and Velikovsky's Revision of Ancient History’, IVR IV, 30–31.
30 See the Appendix to Peoples of the Sea, For a very damaging criticism of the basis for the received chronology which is quite independent of Velikovsky, see R.D. Long, ‘A Re‐Examination of the Sothic Chrosology of Egypt’ (Orientalia, 1974).
31 The matter is well expressed by Long: ‘Unfortunately probationary conclusions have gradually gained unqualified acceptance while the controversial evidence on which the conclusions were based has been relegated to toal obscurity’ (art. cit., 261–2).
32 PS 226–8, 230–31. Cf. Long, art. cit., 270.
33 For these and other favourable notices of Velikovsky's historical work, see ‘A Revised Chronology for the Ancient Near East’ (pamphlet issued by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1977).
You have
Access