Happy New Year 2006 !

Happy New Year 2006

CEO Bloggers’ Club Blog

Here is an interesting concept, the CEO Bloggers’ Club.

European Foundations: Law and Taxation

EFC, The European Foundation Centre, headquartered in Brussels, has
a useful article on Foundations in 15 European countries – legal and tax comparative overview: Highlights.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year


AJAX – The Coming Blockbuster Technology – EU Law

Via CaryGEE, who always has his finger on the trigger of tomorrow, this is a vestige of things to come….

Take a look at ProtoPage.com which offers “Free AJAX start pages now with RSS news feeds, sticky notes and bookmarks“.

The user need not register, but if no registration is made, the created page expires in 48 hours. Registration is free, so it is definitely worth the experiment.

We have created an AJAX page for links and RSS to the law of the European Union at http://www.protopage.com/orcimtfos. This kind of a page can be created in a very short period of time for almost any topic – the applications are immense.

AJAX viz. Ajax is the acronym for Asynchronous JavaScript + XML.

As written by Jesse James Garrett on February 18, 2005 in Ajax: A New Approach to Web Application, Ajax “represents a fundamental shift in what’s possible on the Web“.

Garrett writes further that:

An Ajax application eliminates the start-stop-start-stop nature of interaction on the Web by introducing an intermediary — an Ajax engine — between the user and the server. It seems like adding a layer to the application would make it less responsive, but the opposite is true.

Instead of loading a webpage, at the start of the session, the browser loads an Ajax engine — written in JavaScript and usually tucked away in a hidden frame. This engine is responsible for both rendering the interface the user sees and communicating with the server on the user’s behalf. The Ajax engine allows the user’s interaction with the application to happen asynchronously — independent of communication with the server. So the user is never staring at a blank browser window and an hourglass icon, waiting around for the server to do something….“

No more waiting around? Terrific. The promise of this technology is immense, and that is why Google is using it. Garrett writes further:

Google is making a huge investment in developing the Ajax approach…. Others are following … Flickr … Amazon’s A9.com search ….

AJAX is going to be a blockbuster. Take a look at Garrett’s Q&A.

Crossposted to EU Pundit.

Law and Science

Glenn Harlan Reynolds has a recent link at Instapundit to his Spring, 1999, Tennessee Law Review article entitled “THANK GOD FOR THE LAWYERS”: SOME THOUGHTS ON THE (MIS)REGULATION OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT, 66 Tenn. L. Rev. 801.

Really, everybody in law and science should read that article.

See also these website pages by others:
Too good to be true
Israel charges four over antiquities scam
and websites (see unofficial translation of the indictments)
Archaeological Forgeries

The Law Pundit has been battling mainstream science for years because too many of the members of that group arrogantly think that the noble pursuit of truth is equivalent to its attainment, indeed, they often think they are the attainers, which is not always the case.

In fact, the state of the real world of science is probably worse than the picture painted by Reynolds, especially in the humanities, where it is much harder than in the physical sciences to prove (or disprove) that the theoretical motors of scientific concepts in the “soft disciplines” actually run. And some of them, when the actual evidence is examined, are motors which definitely do not run.

Our paradigm example in the humanities is illustrated by the case elaborated in Breaking the Maya Code, a book by Michael D. Coe, professor emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University. Coe clearly and understandably relates how the quest in Maya studies among the leading authorities of the day was not a quest for truth, but rather for power and position, just as in every other profession. Truth was secondary and was not allowed to surface until the opponents – who were scientifically in the wrong – died.

Yuri V. Knorosov, who was a researcher at the then Leningrad [now St. Petersburg] Institute of Ethnology is now the undisputed decipherer of Maya glyphs, but his battle against the powers of mainstream academia was not some sort of an unfortunate exception or misunderstanding in the scientific world. There are still many areas of science where unproven theories are rampant.

We refer here to our many postings on this topic:

Mainstream Archaeology Fakes
Lawyers and Archaeologists
Peer Review Blocks Contrary (but Correct) Opinions
Japanese Jomon rock image a fake
Senior Scholars Never Challenged
Law, Evidence and Archaeology: Errors in Biblical Chronology I
Law, Evidence and Archaeology: Errors in Biblical Chronology II
Vaccination, Autism, Facts, Peer Review, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos
citing to The Scientific Status of Theology: Imre Lakatos, Method and Demarcation by Greg Peterson
The Importance of Evidence
The Sky Disk of Nebra : A Question of Evidence
Belief Without Proof : Evidence and the World – #12 – Americas Populated only Recently
Who Rightfully Claims the Holy Land?
Belief Without Proof : Evidence and the World – #1 – String Theory in Physics
The Political Realities of Mainstream Science – Richard C. Lewontin
The Lost Ark of the Law, the Mishnayot, the Talmud and the Tosefta
Research Skills are not everything – but close
Stars Stones Scholars : The Decipherment of the Megaliths as an Ancient Survey of the Earth by Astronomy

The European Union – Improving the Image of the EU

We have been thinking about the future of the supranational European Union (see also Oxford Scholarship Online).

Let us apply some Madison Avenue thinking along the lines of (“We are the World“) to that question.

The European Union is a Political Product for a Multicultural Audience in a Supranational Setting

In many ways, the European Union is a political product which has to be “sold” to its multicultural, supranational consumers of 25 nations. It is a political union which has to be made both understandable and palatable to its constituents, otherwise, as the German proverb states “Was der Bauer nicht kennt, das isst er nicht” (What the farmer doesn’t know, he doesn’t eat). As noted concerning the French “no” vote on the EU Constitution by the World Socialist Web Site:

The division between the camps was along social lines. Three-quarters of blue-collar and two-thirds of white-collar workers, as well as the majority of small farmers and rural workers, voted “no.”

Obviously, the farmers and those of the same mentality were rejecting that which they did not know. In France, one must clearly make the politics as palatable as the food, no easy task.

Although not everyone likes to look at this matter as a non-political issue, all political groupings, even nations, are consumer products to be accepted or rejected by the voters. Pure democracy is politically capitalistic, culminating in the philosophy of “one man, one vote“. Each voter in a democracy is in a position to vote for the political product he chooses.

What makes a political product desirable? and why is the European Union having so much trouble keeping their flock of sheep together, or is even failing at achieving such an objective as the ratification of a European Constitution which more or less codifies laws already in force. Obviously, the EU is doing something wrong. What should they be doing right?

Google Worldwide as an Example for Successful Supranational Marketing

Here, as an example, we thought of Google (started by Stanford students), which in the last analysis, is also “a product” to be consumed. After all, there are many alternative search engines. What makes Google so successful?

In many ways, Google’s success was highly improbable. Before Google came on the market, there were already some very good search engines available, e.g. AlltheWeb, originally powered by Fast, which we still have installed at InternetLawWeb, and which still gives excellent search results. Prior to that the web had and in some part still has Excite (started by Stanford students), Yahoo (started by Stanford students), WebCrawler, GoTo (later Overture, purchased by Yahoo), Lycos, HotBot, Ask Jeeves, and AltaVista (we still use their translator). And there are also many newbies such as MSN Search, LookSmart, Teoma, Clusty, and IceRocket.

So how did Google, which was only started in 1999, become such a powerhouse in only six years? By Madison Avenue standards, where successful – and always risky – new product placement requires millions of dollars of advertising, this achievement was awesome.

Kim Peterson, Seattle Times technology reporter, has a superb article “How ‘search’ is redefining the Web — and our lives” in which he writes:

Clean, simple, inviting

Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., hit the $1 billion quarterly sales mark in 2004, just five years after its official launch. Its search engine won fans immediately upon debut because it served up relevant results in fractions of a second and had the minimalist appeal of white hotel sheets — clean, simple and inviting. Google’s vault into the spotlight was perfectly timed to two important events: Mainstream users began discovering search, and competitors, distracted by the dot-com bust, lost their focus on quality.

Other search engines stopped improving their results, and the blinking and sparkling banner ads on their Web sites screamed for too much attention. Google produced answers fast, showing some unobtrusive ads along the way. That wasn’t a bad tradeoff for users.

“We were finding things before Google came along, but they definitely raised the bar and raised the expectations of what we could get out of search,” said Sullivan at Search Engine Watch. “They made it more manageable.”

Google is the most popular engine today, home to 35 percent of Web searches. It receives hundreds of millions of requests every day, and studies them so thoroughly that it puts out a regular update of user patterns….“

Clean, simple, inviting

If we look carefully at Peterson’s article, we see his description of Google’s success as based on making their product “clean, simple and inviting” to everyone (at last count, 116 different language interfaces).

In contrast, the European Union is not viewed as clean, simple, and inviting but is rather viewed as formidable and complex, precisely the opposite of the image that it needs to have in order to win over its constituents.

This is doable, since the prevailing image of the EU held by the ordinary citizen is absolutely false. The European Union bureaucracy is in fact quite modest in size.

The total employees of the European Commission – the main EU employer – number about 24000.

This is much less than the student body of many college campuses at universities in the United States, e.g. Arizona State University(38117), University of Texas (36473), Ohio State University (36097), University of Florida (33094), Purdue (30391), UCLA (24946), University of Michigan (24677). These are just the number of undergraduate students, not even including the graduate students.

Consider also that the German Pension Insurance Association (Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund) has 53000 employees, more than twice as many as the entire European Commission.

The Department of Work and Pensions in the United Kingdom numbers more than 100000, many of those in the Pension Service, more than four times the number of persons employed by the European Commission.

The French pension authority employs 35900 persons (La Caisse des Dépôts emploie 35 900 personnes), about 10000 more than the European Commission.

As written in Newsweek some years ago:

Brussels’s budget is just more than 1 percent of the EU’s total GNP. Moravcsik points out that once you exclude translators and clerical workers, the European Commission employs 2,500 officials, “fewer than any moderately sized European city and less than 1 percent of the number employed by the French state alone.” Any new law it wishes to pass needs more than 71 percent of weighted national-government votes–“a larger proportion than that required to amend the American Constitution.”

Not only is the budget of the European Union smaller than most persons imagine, but a majority of that budget goes right back into the pockets of European citizens, for example, through agricultural subsidies, which have historically made up about 50% of the EU budget.

As can be seen from the chart at page 34 of European Public Finances: Much Ado About Nothing?, by Lars P. Feld of the University of Marburg, net budget-induced gains or losses, as judged by each EU country, are next to negligible.

In the same vein, it is disturbing to read misleading news reports about, for example, a “massive” translation department which in fact consists only of an overworked 1600 Brussels-based translators, and outside agencies, who, rather than being a burden to Europe, are actually playing a significant role in maintaining the importance of the languages of the countries of Europe. Perhaps those who criticize the translation expense in the EU should be the first to volunteer “their” language to be excluded from EU translation….

How could this exaggeratedly false view of European Union institutions have come about?

Understandably, the institutions of the European Union have worked hard in the past to project themselves as big and powerful. Although this image projection was perhaps necessary in initial years to establish EU institutions, especially since Member States retain a great deal of their sovereignty, perhaps these institutions have been too successful in projecting this big image. What is now perhaps required is the creation of a more positive image in the minds of European citizens that the EU is not going to steamroller them by means of a giant bureaucracy, a giant bureaucracy that simply does not exist.

The reality is that the European Commission, which does the brunt of the work of the European Union, is smaller than the student enrollment at many an American university and smaller than the government pension services in each of France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Lastly, a false image about the European Union is created by a European Constitution which is simply too verbose, inclusive and unnecessarily complex. The original US Constitution was 4 pages of written text including only the most essential elements of government, whereas the EU Constitution runs 485 pages in the official .pdf version, including masses of detail having no place in such a document.

Clean, simple and inviting. These are perhaps the major characteristics which should mark a re-marketing of the European Union to its constituents.

Crossposted to EU Pundit.

Law, Evidence and Archaeology: Errors in Biblical Chronology II

The New Year is coming soon on January 1, 2006 and it might interest our readers to read how we inherited that New Year’s date. Why January 1? See here.

The following material provides additional calendric analysis concerning our previous posting on Law, Evidence and Archaeology: Errors in Biblical Chronology, where we demonstrate that there is a 28-year error in conforming Babylonian sources to Biblical history.

How did the 28-year error find its way into Biblical Chronology – and thus also – into Roman Chronology?

The same error is found in the related Roman Chronology because of scholarly reliance on Ptolemy’s list of kings and because of the failure to identify the famous mid-day eclipse of Amos (8;9) as the astronomically significant (our discovery)
June 24, 791 B.C. eclipse
(this eclipse occurs on the Summer Solstice during the day)
rather than the currently and erroneously accepted (and relatively insignificant)
eclipse of June 15, 763 B.C.
(this eclipse occurs in the morning and not at all at “mid-day”).
See Starry Night Pro for those dates.

As written by James B. Jordan at Biblical Horizons:

The eclipse recorded in the 10th year of Ashur-dan III might not have been on 15 June 763 after all.”

That is a true statement. It was not that eclipse at all, and this is the reason that the Biblical and Babylonian records currently do not mesh, because mainstream scholarship has selected the wrong eclipse as its cardinal historical date. Alan Montgomery, who correctly assigns a much earlier date to Exodus than present scholarship, as we also have done for many years, points to the chronological problems:

There is a significant statement recorded in the 10th year of Ashur-Dan III who reigned supposedly to 772-755 BC. In the text accompanying the eponym year named Pur-Sagale (the Assyrians named each year) is a statement that there was a solar eclipse in the month of Simanu (May/June). Astronomers have calculated that there was a solar eclipse on June 15, 763 BC which was visible in Assyria. This would seem to confirm the Assyrian eponym and kinglists. However, the details of time and place are missing. There is not enough information to be absolutely sure about this eclipse. But note that 3 years have been added to this chronology in the Chaldean period so that the 10th of Ashur-Dan III is now 766 BC. There was no solar eclipse visible from Assyria in May/June of that year. At least 25 additional years must be added between T-P and Ashur-Dan III to make his 10th year have a solar eclipse in the late spring of 791 BC. Such a date would require a major adjustment to the accepted biblical chronology to keep the accepted synchronisms between the earlier Israelite kings Ahab, Jehu and Jehoash and Assyrian kings Shalmaneser III and Adad-Nirari III. It is not hard to understand why historians and chronologists want to keep such a valuable independent confirmation of the conventional chronology.”

Any scholar who examines the evidence critically could not possibly abide by the 763 B.C. eclipse date. It will be difficult of course for mainstream scholarship to admit that they have made this crucial error, but they have no choice. The presently accepted chronology is built on sand.


[For Ptolemy’s data, see Ptolemy’s Almagest, translated by Gerald J. Toomer, Princeton University Press, 1998. There is also a translation by Owen Gingerich of Harvard.]

There is a great deal of dispute about Ptolemy’s chronology, not only in Toomer’s book above, but also in Robert R. Newton, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Johns Hopkins University Press.

See particularly James B. Jordon on Biblical Chronology.

Newton’s book alleges that Ptolemy has severe errors in his data and that he either forged his astronomical data to make it agree to an erroneous preconceived historical chronology or copied that erroneous data from Hipparchus.

Newton is no slouch – he is a professional astronomer who was updating the solar system data for NASA and examining Ptolemy’s data in the course of his research.

As noted about Newton’s book by George J. Parrish, Jr. at Astronomical Dating:

It must also be noted that Hipparchus, from whom Ptolemy might have obtained some of his data, is suspected of having obtained his information base by working backward from the results he expected. This would mean that Hipparchus was working only with astronomical records made in a later period, and that he assigned a king’s year number based on the opinion popular in his time.”


Edwin R. Thiele – a supporter of Ptolemy – writes in his A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings (44):
For many years Old Testament scholars have noticed that a total of 128 regnal years for the rulers of Judah from the accession of Athaliah to the end of Azariah … was about a quarter of a century in excess of the years of contemporary Assyria….” [emphasis added]

Professor Samuel A. Mitchell wrote in Eclipses of the Sun (p. 19):

As a result of the Babylonian eclipses, it has been necessary to alter the chronology of the Bible by lowering the dates to the extent of TWENTY-FIVE years ….”

That chronological adjustment downward is clearly erroneous. The present Biblical calendar must be moved back 28 years. The Biblical dates should not have been lowered, but rather the Babylonian dates should have been set backward to correspond to Biblical chronology.

Hollstein’s Dendrochronological Data

Let us review in more detail Ernst Hollstein’s book, Mitteleuropäische Eichenchronologie, the chronology of Europe by dendrochronology (study of tree rings), Trierer dendrochronologische Forschungen zur Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte, 1980, XI, 273 pages, Philipp von Zabern, Mainz. See also here and here.

As Hollstein states, when you have enough samples, dating to a year by tree rings is no problem. His massive volume of nearly 300 pages of oversize paper is an astute, detailed synthetic scientific work of the kind which made German scientists famous in past centuries.

In Hollstein’s book, published in 1980 (he has since passed away), there is found what “mainstream” historians subsequently have erroneously alleged to be a ca. 26-year error in Hollstein’s tree-ring data, since that data diverges from accepted chronology by that amount of time – not by any particular intent of Hollstein, but simply because that is what the dendrochronological data gave as results.

No one had any idea “why” the data diverged. Mainstream scholars of course thought Hollstein had erred, never thinking to examine their OWN historical chronology, which in fact is based on less solid grounds than Hollstein’s work. In the end, mainstream chronology is simply wrong. Mainstream scholars have erred, not Hollstein.

At page 74 of his book, Hollstein discusses his tree-ring data for the Roman Bridge at Cologne, Germany, which according to an analysis of the remains of trees used to build it, was built ca. 336 A.D. But by current chronology, the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (the first emperor to adopt Christianity, thus bringing it to the Western world) held a speech in Trier about the building of this very same bridge at the end of July, viz. beginning of August in 310 A.D. – a full 26 years PRIOR to the actual building of the bridge. It is a 26-year error.

Someone had erred – was it Hollstein? No, the tree ring data are clear and there is no serious dispute about these tree ring findings. In fact, as Hollstein himself observes, earlier dendrochronological dates from the nearby grave under the later-built Cologne Cathedral (Kölner Dom) had already pointed to a date of ca. 338 A.D. and since then – underneath the southern “Querhaus” of the Cathedral – twelve wooden posts were found – arranged as Hollstein notes in a “circular stave” fashion [astronomy?], with evidence that they supported a roof. This construction is ALSO dated by dendrochronology to ca. 338 A.D. So there are three separate sources for Hollstein’s dates, all giving the same result.

Hollstein even writes that he regretted (p.5) already in 1972 not having accepted his earlier dendrochronological findings as fact, even though they contradicted the 310 A.D. date used by the mainstream historians for the comparable period. In Hollstein’s words in German “Ich hätte das jetzt vorliegende wahre Datum dieser Pfähle 336 n.Chr. (vgl. Köln, Rheinbrücke) bereits 1972 akzeptieren müssen….

We might add to Hollstein’s proof additional observations about bridge-building on rivers. Obviously, especially in ancient times, when the building of such bridges was far more arduous than currently, the engineers would have tried to get “dry years” for bridge-building on great rivers, since then the water would be lower, the current would be less strong, and building problems would be lessened. The amount of rain is in fact reflected in tree-rings, with very narrow tree rings shown in rainfall-meager periods and large tree-rings in periods with much rainfall – although of course there are other factors as well. Nevertheless, in ca. 336 A.D. – as shown in Hollstein’s graph of the width of tree rings from 250 to 350 A.D. (p. 192) there must have been a sharp drop in rainfall starting ca. 332 A.D, which continued for a number of years to an absolute low in ca. 336 A.D. (as judged by the narrowing of tree rings). Hence, it was in fact an ideal period for bridge-building across large rivers whose waterflow was reduced by drought.

Hollstein himself was by no means thrilled with the dates which resulted from his studies, as these put him into a scientific quandary, having data which contradicted mainstream chronology, and having no explanation available for the deviation from that chronology.

For accurate chronology, however, the results of Hollstein are essential, useful and correct. Not only must Biblical chronology be completely revised, but Roman chronology as well.

Old Ideas vs. New Ideas

Here is something to think about.

My personal Google Page runs the following quote today from “The Quotations Page“.

I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas.
I’m frightened of the old ones.

– John Cage

Alien Tort Claims and Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain

Due to current events, we have updated our 2003 posting on the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) [also known as the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA)] and the Supreme Court decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

European Union – .eu domain launches

The European Union’s new .eu domain launched on December 7, 2005. As reported by Lucia Kubosova at EUobserver, EURid reported that 40,500 applications were received in the first 15 minutes of launch and over 100,000 had been received by evening of the first day.

Business applications were highest for internet names such as hotels.eu, tickets.eu and job.eu although over 200 applicants also filed for the domain sex.eu.

The assignment of these types of generically named domains is tantamount to a license to print money and we think it would actually be more sensible for the EU to retain these domains for use by non-profits or for EU government use.

Generic names such as hotel.eu, hotels.eu or travel.eu, which cover an entire business field and to which no private business should actually have any priority of access, should be awarded to the major non-profit associations or consumer protection organizations dealing with these subjects in Europe.

sex.eu should be used as a site for sex education or should be awarded to a consumer protection organization dealing with sex sites on the internet, rather than to give it to some private sex website who will make millions just because of having this domain name.

Indeed, the EU has the power to set some new sensible precedents here in the assignment of domain names, especially for those generic “business” domains which are claimed by multiple parties.

We would adopt an internal rule at EURid that generically named sites which are claimed in the “sunrise periods” by more than one party and to which no unique EU trademark priority exists would automatically be reserved for official EU or non-profit use.

Of course, once the “sunrise periods” are over, domains should be assigned on a first come, first served basis, as long as trademarks are not violated, but that is a different question.

Cross-posted to EU Pundit.

WikiLaw – An Open-Content Legal Resource

We recently posted about WEXA Wiki Legal Dictionary and Encyclopedia at the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School

We have since been informed of the existence of
WikiLaw – an open-content legal resource

WikiLaw has the following purposes:

“Wikilaw’s goal is to build the largest open-content legal resource in the
world. Wikilaw hopes to tap into the knowledge of the roughly 1,000,000
lawyers in the United States to build one of the largest libaries or legal
information in the world. The Wiki is published under the GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL), which means that all the information found
on the site can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new
version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of
the Wikilaw article used.

Wikilaw has several different areas where collaborative development can

(1) Wiki-Treatises: Wiki-Treatises are collaborative documents created by
the Wikilaw community on various different aspects of the law.

(2) Wiki-Law-Review: allows anyone to post a “thesis” for an article,
which is freely editable by other users. Alternatively, anyone can post a
completed law review article and have other users contribute and edit the
article, subject to the GFDL license.

(3) Wiki-Law-Dictionary: seeks to collaboratively produce a comprehensive
law dictionary that is easily searchable and free.

(4) Wiki-Legislate: is an experiment that hypothesizes that a wide range
of individuals, not just politicians and special interest groups, can
contribute to the creation of our nation’s laws. When Wiki-Legislate was
launched, it began in a vacuum with no laws. From scratch, the Wikilaw
community can construct laws that it feels should be imposed on society.
Initially, Wiki-Legistlate started with no laws. It assumed that no laws
existed in the world. All laws listed in this section are the
collaborative effort of the Wikilaw community. Wiki-Legislate is an
aggregator of viewpoints, which allows users to get together and decide
what law should be imposed on society. Wiki-Legislate hopes to become a
filter to accurately gague social norms, and tranform those norms into

(5) Wiki-Motions: seeks to provide give practitioners a resource to help them drafting memos in support of their motions.”

We at LawPundit think that it will be impossible to maintain a law wiki without some kind of editorial control over postings, so we will have to see how the open-content approach works in practice.

Law, Evidence and Archaeology: Errors in Biblical Chronology

Below is an interesting law-related press release about the work of R.P. BenDedek, a theologian who has become fed up with the subjective and sloppy way in which archaeologists and historians have juggled evidence (or non-evidence) about the history of the Middle East to suit their personal predilections and to warp history. BenDedek tries to remedy the situation by applying the strict evidentiary standards of the law to archaeological inquiry, a process which we have previously named “evidentiary archaeology“.

We have claimed similarly for many years now that mainstream Biblical chronology is flawed (1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ) and that many archaeological theories of mainstream scholarship about the history of the Middle East would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence.

Indeed, we demonstrated explicitly some years ago that the dendrochronological work of Ernst Hollstein proved unequivocally that a ca. 30-year error has been made in Biblical chronology and that a study of eclipse data shows this to be an error of precisely 28 years.

Australian Theologian R.P. BenDedek has now rightly come to the same conclusion that Biblical chronology is in error. Here is the PRWEB posting and press release about BenDedek’s writings:

Australian Theologian takes Archaeologists and Historians to Court
Download this press release as an
Adobe PDF document

Australian theologian, historian and newspaper columnist, R.P. BenDedek has accused a number of archaeologists and historians, of using false documentary evidence to support claims in relation to the history of the Ancient Near East.

(PRWEB) December 4, 2005 — Australian theologian, historian and
newspaper columnist, R.P. BenDedek has accused a number of
archaeologists and Historians, of using false documentary evidence to
support claims in relation to the history of the Ancient Near East.

In a four part series of ‘legal’ articles entitled “The Law, Rules of
Evidence & Archaeology”, BenDedek, using both Australian and American
Law, has written a judicial cross examination of witnesses, to prove
that evidence used by academics to reconstruct the history of
Assyria, Syria, Judah and Israel, would not be permitted in a court
of law, and that their conclusions would not be ‘beyond reasonable

Claiming their evidence is legally ‘false evidence’, he suggests that
prejudice and bias are the reasons why academics knowingly use
factually erroneous evidence.

In one criticism, he writes: “if you logically follow some ‘contrary
academic explanations’ that are offered without ‘evidence’, the
fanciful theory ultimately turns into a ‘conspiracy theory’, that
defies both evidence and logic

Whilst admitting errors exist in Israel’s historical records, and
allowing Academics to draw inferences from fragmentary evidence,
BenDedek is adamant that they cannot be allowed to ‘pass off opinions
as actual evidence of the facts’.

The Judge in BenDedek’s criminal law cross examination exercise
received the verdict from the jury, and promptly threw the academic
evidence out of court.

Full story: The Law, Rules of Evidence & Archaeology Part 1.

[at] http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=256

Typical for the reaction of mainstream scholars to the idea that they should base their theories on actual facts and evidence is this comment at Explorator:

This is just strange … some Australian theologian has taken archaeologists and historians ‘to court’ in regards to claims about the Ancient Near East….”

To which we can only say, yes, it must be STRANGE indeed to persons in these professions to have someone require that the archaeology and history of the Ancient Near East be written according to the actual EVIDENCE available and not according to the personal prejudices, biases, whims and opinions of academics who control the peer-reviewed journals in these academic fields.

A study at Berkeley on the failing research skills of many academics has some interesting things to say about THAT.


Read also Part II of Law, Evidence and Archaeology: Errors in Biblical Chronology.