Errors and Assumptions: A Reply to Kenneth Kitchen
In his article, ‘The Shoshenqs of Egypt and Palestine’ (published in this issue of the journal), Kenneth Kitchen defended the traditional interpretations of Shoshenq's list of conquered cities. He correctly demonstrated that the broken stele found at Megiddo must refer to Shoshenq I. However, h...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sage
2001
|
| In: |
Journal for the study of the Old Testament
Year: 2001, Volume: 25, Issue: 93, Pages: 13-15 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | In his article, ‘The Shoshenqs of Egypt and Palestine’ (published in this issue of the journal), Kenneth Kitchen defended the traditional interpretations of Shoshenq's list of conquered cities. He correctly demonstrated that the broken stele found at Megiddo must refer to Shoshenq I. However, he failed to recognize that the biblical reference to the ‘fifth year’ of Rehoboam may be part of an artificial chronological pattern. Kitchen also refused to recognize another, simpler interpretation of the list and he failed to explain why he chose one location rather than others with the same name. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1476-6728 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the Old Testament
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/030908920102509302 |