[Home]

 

Velikovsky rejected

Below from internet searches:

1) Books 

- **The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe** by Michael D. Gordin (University of Chicago Press, 2012). This book examines Velikovsky's theories as pseudoscience, focusing on how his revised chronology for ancient Egypt and claims of interplanetary catastrophes contradicted established historical and scientific evidence, such as Egyptian astronomical records and archaeological strata. 

- **Scientists Confront Velikovsky** edited by Donald Goldsmith (Cornell University Press, 1977). A collection of essays by astronomers, sociologists, and ancient history experts that systematically critiques Velikovsky's ideas, including his down-dating of Egyptian dynasties (e.g., placing the Amarna period in the 9th century BCE) and linking them to biblical events, arguing these revisions ignore linguistic, archaeological, and astronomical data. 

- **Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science** by Carl Sagan (Random House, 1979). Sagan dedicates a chapter to debunking Velikovsky, highlighting inconsistencies in his Egyptological claims, such as misinterpreting the Papyrus Ipuwer as evidence of 15th-century BCE catastrophes tied to Venus, when it aligns with earlier social upheavals in Egypt's First Intermediate Period. 

2) Articles Including Links 

- **Thoughts on Velikovskian Chronology—From One of Its Staunchest Former Proponents** by Dr. Herman Hoeh (Armstrong Institute, 2023). Hoeh, a former believer who initially incorporated Velikovsky's ideas into his own historical works like the *Compendium of World History*, later rejected them due to conflicts with carbon-14 dating, archaeological strata (e.g., Jerusalem's Iron Age layers), and Egyptian priestly genealogies, arguing Velikovsky's "ghost double" identifications (e.g., Ramesses II as Necho) were untenable. Link: https://armstronginstitute.org/1216-thoughts-on-velikovskian-chronology-from-one-of-its-staunchest-former-proponents. 

- **An Alternative to the Velikovskian Chronology of Ancient Egypt** by David Rohl (David Rohl's blog, 2012). Rohl, who began his research influenced by Velikovsky and worked on modifications like the "Glasgow Chronology," critiques Velikovsky's elimination of "phantom years" in Egyptian history (e.g., erroneous links between Necho I/Psamtek I and Ramesses I/Seti I) as methodologically flawed, proposing instead overlaps in the Third Intermediate Period to shorten the timeline without Velikovsky's extremes. Link: http://davidrohl.blogspot.com/2012/11/an-alternative-to-velikovskian.html. 

- **Immanuel Velikovsky's Catastrophic History** by Edwin Yamauchi (*Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith*, 1973). This article dissects Velikovsky's revised Egyptian chronology, such as dating the Hyksos invasion to align with the Amalekites and the Exodus to the Middle Kingdom's end, as unsupported by evidence like the Gilgamesh Epic, Papyrus Ipuwer dating, and Amarna letters' linguistic mismatches. Link: https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1973/JASA12-73Yamauchi.html. 

- **Catastrophism: The Pseudoscience Wars** by Steven Shapin (*London Review of Books*, 2012). Shapin reviews criticisms of Velikovsky's Egyptology, including his use of Jewish history to recalibrate Egyptian timelines (e.g., Venus as a comet causing Exodus-era disasters), deeming them pseudoscientific for ignoring physics and historical methods. Link: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v34/n21/steven-shapin/catastrophism. 

- **Immanuel Velikovsky and the History of Israel** by Claude Mariottini (Claude Mariottini blog, 2009). Critiques Velikovsky's linking of Egyptian and Israelite histories (e.g., Hatshepsut as the Queen of Sheba), arguing it distorts standard chronologies and ignores Egyptological consensus. Link: https://claudemariottini.com/2009/08/20/immanuel-velikovsky-and-the-history-of-israel/. 

- **Vying with Velikovsky: What Does CMI Think?** by Gavin Cox (*Creation Ministries International*, 2021). Rejects Velikovsky's "disastrously extreme" revised chronology for Egypt, such as down-dating the New Kingdom to align with biblical events, as undermining archaeological and biblical authority. Link: https://creation.com/vying-velikovsky-what-cmi-thinks.

====================================

Researchers Who Initially Supported Velikovsky and Later Rejected His Views

Immanuel Velikovsky's theories, particularly those in *Worlds in Collision* and his revised chronology of ancient history, attracted some early supporters among researchers interested in catastrophism, biblical history, and alternative chronologies. However, a few later distanced themselves or explicitly rejected key aspects due to inconsistencies with archaeological evidence, radiocarbon dating, and other empirical data. Below is a list of such individuals, focusing on those with documented shifts in stance, along with their relevant books and articles. Note that "support" often meant drawing inspiration from or modifying Velikovsky's ideas rather than wholesale endorsement, and "rejection" typically involved critiquing specific claims while sometimes retaining broader catastrophist elements.

| Researcher | Background and Shift | Key Books and Articles |
|------------|-----------------------|------------------------|
| Dr. Herman Hoeh (1928–2004) | A historian and biblical scholar associated with Ambassador College and Herbert W. Armstrong's ministry. He initially incorporated Velikovsky's chronological revisions into his works to align biblical and historical timelines but rejected them by the late 1970s, citing advancements in archaeology, carbon-14 dating, and irreconcilable evidence (e.g., inscriptions and strata that contradicted Velikovsky's "down-dating" of Egyptian dynasties). | - *Compendium of World History* (drafted 1962, revised 1967) – Early work influenced by Velikovsky.<br>- *Exploring Ancient History: The First 2,500 Years* (1967, co-authored with Roy Schultz) – Drew on Velikovsky's model. |


| Peter James (1952–2024) | A historian and co-founder of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS), which explored catastrophism. He initially supported and modified Velikovsky's chronology (e.g., via the "Glasgow Chronology") but later rejected core elements like the separation of certain Egyptian dynasties, developing alternative revisions based on conventional evidence. | - “A Critique of ‘Ramses II and His Time’” (*SIS Review*, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1978) – Early critique of specific Velikovsky claims.<br>- “An Alternative to the Velikovskian Chronology for Ancient Egypt” (*SIS Workshop*, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1983, co-authored with David Rohl) – Proposes alternatives signaling shift away from Velikovsky.<br>- *Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology* (1991, co-authored with I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot, and John Frankish) – Presents a moderate revision distancing from Velikovsky's approach. |


| John J. Bimson | A biblical scholar and archaeologist involved with SIS. He initially engaged with revised chronologies inspired by Velikovsky to reddate the Exodus and Conquest but later rejected his own proposals and debunked specific Velikovsky identifications (e.g., Hatshepsut as the Queen of Sheba), aligning more with conventional stratigraphy and evidence. | - *Redating the Exodus and Conquest* (1978) – Early work on revised chronology influenced by Velikovsky's ideas.<br>- “Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba” (1986) – Article debunking a key Velikovsky claim, marking rejection. |

Other researchers like David Rohl developed alternatives (e.g., *A Test of Time*, 1995).

==========================

Below from Wikipedia:

Velikovsky's ideas have been rejected by academia (often vociferously so) and his work is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions. Moreover, scholars view his unorthodox methodology (for example, using comparative mythology to derive scenarios in celestial mechanics) as an unacceptable way to arrive at conclusions. Stephen Jay Gould[39] offered a synopsis of the mainstream response to Velikovsky, writing, "Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan—although, to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong ... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends."

Velikovsky's bestselling, and as a consequence most criticized, book is Worlds in Collision. Astronomer Harlow Shapley, along with others such as Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, were highly critical of Macmillan's decision to publish the work. The fundamental criticism against this book from the astronomy community was that its celestial mechanics were physically impossible, requiring planetary orbits that do not conform with the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum.[citation needed]

Velikovsky relates in his book Stargazers & Gravediggers how he tried to protect himself from criticism of his celestial mechanics by removing the original appendix on the subject from Worlds in Collision, hoping that the merit of his ideas would be evaluated on the basis of his comparative mythology and use of literary sources alone. However, this strategy did not protect him: the appendix was an expanded version of the Cosmos Without Gravitation monograph, which he had already distributed to Shapley and others in the late 1940s—and they had regarded the physics within it as absurd.[citation needed]

By 1974, the controversy surrounding Velikovsky's work had permeated US society to the point where the American Association for the Advancement of Science felt obliged to address the situation, as they had previously done in relation to UFOs, and devoted a scientific session to Velikovsky featuring (among others) Velikovsky himself and Professor Carl Sagan. Sagan gave a critique of Velikovsky's ideas (the book version of Sagan's critique is much longer than that presented in the talk; see below). His criticisms are available in Scientists Confront Velikovsky[40] and as a corrected and revised version in the book Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science.[41]

It was not until the 1980s that a very detailed critique of Worlds in Collision was made in terms of its use of mythical and literary sources when Bob Forrest published a highly critical examination of them (see below). Earlier in 1974, James Fitton published a brief critique of Velikovsky's interpretation of myth (ignored by Velikovsky and his defenders) whose indictment began: "In at least three important ways Velikovsky's use of mythology is unsound. The first of these is his proclivity to treat all myths as having independent value; the second is the tendency to treat only such material as is consistent with his thesis; and the third is his very unsystematic method."[42] A short analysis of the position of arguments in the late 20th century is given by Dr Velikovsky's ex-associate, and Kronos editor, C. Leroy Ellenberger, in his A Lesson from Velikovsky.[43]

More recently, the absence of supporting material in ice-core studies (such as the Greenland Dye-3 and Vostok cores) has removed any basis for the proposition of a global catastrophe of the proposed dimension within the later Holocene period. However, tree-ring expert Mike Baillie would give credit to Velikovsky after disallowing the impossible aspects of Worlds in Collision: "However, I would not disagree with all aspects of Velikovsky's work. Velikovsky was almost certainly correct in his assertion that ancient texts hold clues to catastrophic events in the relatively recent past, within the span of human civilization, which involve the effects of comets, meteorites and cometary dust ... But fundamentally, Velikovsky did not understand anything about comets ... He did not know about the hazard posed by relatively small objects ... This failure to recognize the power of comets and asteroids means that it is reasonable to go back to Velikovsky and delete all the physically impossible text about Venus and Mars passing close to the earth ... In other words, we can get down to his main thesis, which is that the Earth experienced dramatic events from heavenly bodies particularly in the second millennium BC."[44]

Velikovsky's revised chronology has been rejected by nearly all mainstream historians and Egyptologists. It was claimed, starting with early reviewers, that Velikovsky's usage of material for proof is often very selective.[45][46][47] In 1965 the leading cuneiformist Abraham Sachs, in a forum at Brown University, discredited Velikovsky's use of Mesopotamian cuneiform sources.[48] Velikovsky was never able to refute Sachs' attack.[49] In 1978, following the much-postponed publication of further volumes in Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos series, the United Kingdom-based Society for Interdisciplinary Studies organised a conference in Glasgow specifically to debate the revised chronology.[50] The ultimate conclusion of this work, by scholars including Peter James, John Bimson, Geoffrey Gammonn, and David Rohl, was that the Revised Chronology was untenable.[51] The SIS has continued to publish updates of this ongoing discussion, in particular the work of historian Emmet Sweeney.

While James credits Velikovsky with "point[ing] the way to a solution by challenging Egyptian chronology", he severely criticised the contents of Velikovsky's chronology as "disastrously extreme", producing "a rash of new problems far more severe than those it hoped to solve" and claiming that "Velikovsky understood little of archaeology and nothing of stratigraphy."[52]

Bauer accuses Velikovsky of dogmatically asserting interpretations which are at best possible, and gives several examples from Ages in Chaos.[53]