SIS 1995 #1 The Patchwork Pentateuch by Dick Atkinson The/ C&CR/ Special Issue (/Proceedings of the 1993 SIS Cambridge Conference/) made fascinating reading. Three items all called to mind a common difficulty in reading the Bible. I myself am not a Biblical scholar, nor do I read Hebrew. For the past few years I have made it my policy to keep by me Richard Elliott Friedman's excellent /Who Wrote the Bible?/ [1] to disentangle the intertwined sources in the Pentateuch. Friedman builds on the scholarly consensus, in general presenting strong evidence in accessible form for such a position (but also arguing compellingly for certain departures from the standard, notably the date for the 'P' source, which do not materially affect the points made here). His book is written for the non-specialist. The early Pentateuch is agreed to be a complicated amalgamation, betraying on stylistic, theological and other grounds at least 5 separate writers. They are labelled and dated (in Friedman's scheme) as follows: 'J' the Yahwist 9th century BC 'E' the Elohist 8th century (or earlier?) 'P' the Priestly writer 7th century (or later?) 'D' the Deuteronomist* 6th century 'R' the Redactor 5th century [* the writer of the history from Deuteronomy down to II Kings, whom Friedman identifies as Jeremiah, or his scribe Baruch] The Redactor, whom Friedman believes was Ezra, cobbled the older documents together in such a way that fragments of more than one may coexist in a single verse. He divided the earliest tales into groups which could be represented as historical-theological units and gave a sense of unity to the text by affixing to these groups a brief genealogy, taken from the Priestly /Book of Generations/ (neatly cut into 10-generation slices). Even older sources are drawn on, though we cannot know how they have been altered by the 5 principal authors. These older texts, if texts they were - most were Songs (or collections of Songs) - include pre-10th century material such as the Balaam narrative and the Song of Deborah and also the original court chronicles of Israel and Judah. These 'Chronicles of the Kings' referred to in the Deuteronomistic History are evidently quite different from the Books I & II Chronicles, which perhaps draw on the same sources but add or omit many details and strongly reflect the same milieu and attitudes as 'P'. A comprehensive list of underlying sources may be found in, for example, Gottwald's /The Tribes of Yahweh/ [2]. Steven J. Robinson [3], in support of the possible underlying historicity of the earliest narratives (he considers the Eden story), suggests that the brief genealogies and summations in Genesis are equivalent to a Mesopotamian colophon, effectively a statement of authorship, so that we might identify stories as being eye-witness accounts by Adam, Noah and so on. Robinson cites Wiseman (Nashville 1985) and Mackey, Calneggia and Money [4], though I am told that this idea is much older than that. It is a literary device perfectly consistent with the cultural background (Babylon) of Ezra, though Friedman does not suggest that the Redactor had this in mind when he spliced sections of the old Book of Generations into his new compilation, Genesis, as a unifying structure. (Indeed, the similar dissection of the plagues list and itinerary list into structural markers argues against the colophon idea.) I am advised by Bernard Newgrosh that the colophon was found principally in early Mesopotamian texts and would be an archaism in the work of Ezra. I was perhaps misled by the only example given by Mackey/ /et al in the /C&CW/ 1987:1 article, quoted from Wiseman, which is dated '27th year of Darius'. I assumed 'Darius' to be Darius I of Persia, ruling until 485 BC. Ezra left Babylon around 430 BC, in the reign of Darius' grandson. Thus the suggestion that the supposed colophon style in Genesis - even if accepted - would reinforce the historicity of the very early stories still remains to be resolved. (Note that supposed colophons such as Genesis 5:1 bear little resemblance to this prime example.) It is certain, however, that many of the stories exist in duplicate in the Pentateuch, it being impossible for two contradictory accounts both to be true. An eye witness would not give us such a strange compilation and, were it possible, he would not write them in two styles completely at variance with each other but each clearly present (as Friedman demonstrates so ably) in stories from later centuries, millennia and civilisations. Wiseman had apparently argued that two flood stories were accounts by two different survivors - two of Noah's sons - and that the multiple strands detected by analysis were illusory. Friedman, however, demonstrates that two flood accounts (one 'J', one 'P') are intermeshed almost sentence by sentence and, when unzipped, each not only still makes sense but also displays its own independent stylistic and theological qualities (notably the different names for God) as well as major differences in detail (such as a 40 day flood or a year-long flood). Such a property of the text could not possibly be an accidental feature of a single account by a single author, or be the collaborative effort of two brothers. I have tried reading Genesis 1 and 2 (the back-to-back 'P' and 'J' creation stories) in the same spirit. It is clear that almost any verse can be missed out without spoiling the sense, /except/ for 2:4, the Redactor's contribution, which cleverly implies that the primitive (therefore less developed) 'J' story is some kind of summary of the 'P' story. Although it is of /precisely /the same form as the Genesis 5:1 'colophon', the 2:4 statement mentions no person and /cannot be a colophon/, ie an appended statement of authorship/ownership. (Mackey et al, after Wiseman, also used as a major example Matthew 1:1, to demonstrate the colophon principle but this verse also disproves their case, since it is not at the /end /of anything.) In any case, the early stories have such miraculous elements that only the naivest of fundamentalists could believe that they have not been extensively reworked (eg talking animals, people constructed from dirt or from a spare bone, etc.). John Bimson's lecture [5] argues for a position I entirely agree with: Velikovsky amply demonstrated a second millennium catastrophe but the evidence is consistent with something far less radical than his colliding worlds. A great difficulty is that once any element is dismissed as metaphorical, the way has been opened to a more general scepticism. Velikovsky consistently refused to admit metaphorical interpretations and so avoided that problem. Bimson argues that the walls of water at the Sea of Passage were only metaphorical walls and thus opens the flood-gates, so to speak. Concerning the Pillar of Smoke, he alludes to 6 passages which describe its behaviour in such a way that 'no natural explanation' is possible - the Pillar or Cloud descends on the Tent of Congregation. With the help of my copy of Friedman, I discover that none of the 6 is from the earliest writer ('J'). Friedman demonstrates that the Elohist is at pains to emphasise the sanctity of the Tabernacle (Tent of Congregation) at the expense of the Ark of the Covenant. Actually, it goes further even than that: 'The ark does not appear in E. The Tabernacle does not appear in J.'[6]. ('E' was a northern post-schism source; the Ark was the supreme southern/Davidic symbol of God's presence.) Thus 3 of Bimson's passages reflect merely 8th century theology (Ex 33:9, Nu 11:25, Nu 12:5), while a 4th is the Redactor's further elaboration of this idea in the late 5th century (Nu 9:15-23). Bimson's remaining two references are Exodus 40:34-38 and the rather similar IK 8:10-11. The former is from 'P', while the latter, from the Deuteronomistic History, seems to echo it. (Friedman indeed argued the new idea that 'P' must be earlier than 'D' precisely because any evidence of borrowing is in this direction.) Of the 6 sources, the three earliest (from 'E') are the least magical. Bimson goes on to suggest that Exodus 19:18 cannot be dismissed so easily, since it is a credible eye-witness account of a volcanic eruption. The passage Exodus 19:18 turns out to be a 'J' verse, from the earliest written history. Obviously here the 'Higher Criticism' completely supports Bimson's position. Part 1 of David Salkeld's lecture [7] considers the number of people involved in the Exodus, and comes to the conclusion that the figure of 600,000+ is exaggerated by a factor of around 100, assuming that the term for 'thousands' (in Numbers 1, Numbers 26 and Exodus 12:37) actually signified a military unit of around 10 men, subsequently misunderstood by the redactor. (He cites W.W.Hallo.) He does not give the term, which is in fact the '/eleph/' discussed by Velikovsky [8]. Velikovsky was concerned not with the Exodus in this section but with the time of Jehoshaphat, which he of course synchronised with the el Amarna letters. Velikovsky's point was twofold: that a word spelled (consonantally) /aleph-lamed-phe/ might be read 'chieftain' rather than 'thousand' in the scriptural texts relating to this period and also that the same reading might (sometimes) replace 'ships' in the el Amarna letters (where the term is /elippe /in the transliteration used by Velikovsky). It is the former notion which concerns us here and Salkeld might well have considered Velikovsky's position, especially his supporting argument that I Kings 20:30 involves the same confusion of terms: at Aphek, after a battle, 'a wall fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that were left'. Velikovsky was right in rejecting the reading 'thousand' here - the carnage involved would make the miraculous destruction of Jericho seem like a loose tile or two. (Perhaps Velikovsky's chieftains would seem to make more sense here than Salkeld's squads?) Salkeld suggests that the Exodus figure was subject to a little creative interpretation by two contradictory 'redactors', referring presumably to the 'P' author (or authors?) of the Numbers 1/26 passages. 'R' had a hand in Ex 12:37, although not (according to Friedman) in the numerical part of the verse. 'And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth [Redactor], about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children [Elohist].' Apparently the long Exodus narrative was structured by the Redactor not using pieces of a genealogy, which had been appropriate to the more episodic Genesis, but using the 'itinerary list [...] now located in the book of Numbers, chapter 33. [...] Frank Cross demonstrated that the list was originally an independent document like the Book of Generations. The redactor used this list as a framework for the wilderness stories, just as he had used the Book of Generations for the Genesis stories' [9]. Similarly the Redactor used 'the P plagues narrative for the Egypt stories' [10]. Therefore Salkeld is correct in assuming that the Exodus reference is older in its received written form than the two lists in Numbers. The passages in Numbers 1 and 26 are from the Priestly author, ie 7th century, while the Exodus 12:37 passage is Elohist, or 8th century. In either case, the writer is dealing with events around half a millennium before his own time and might not be particularly trustworthy. Presumably 'E' and 'P' drew on the same source. Intriguingly, as Salkeld notes, the two lists from Numbers do not agree and their differences are apparently greater than might be accounted for by mis-copying of figures. The numbers for the twelve tribes (i.e. excluding Levi but reckoning two Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh) are: 1: 46,500 59,300 45,650 74,600 54,400 57,400 26: 43,730 22,200 40,500 76,500 64,300 60,500 1: 40,500 32,200 35,400 62,700 41,500 53,400 26: (32,500 52,700) 45,600 64,400 53,400 45,400 Salkeld describes the lists as 'contradictory' and so supports his case that they are fictional expansions of the 600 /aleph-lamed-phe /of Exodus (but why two separate fictions?) and this is perhaps further supported by the neat decimal totals, always ending in zero, usually double zero: 'such precision is suspect'. His conclusion, based on the ten-man squad described above, is that around 6,000 men with their women and children, or perhaps 20-30,000 people in all, entered Sinai. However why should a writer who invents a figure invent a suspicious one? Why not number the tribe of Reuben 46,537 for example? We should also note (I draw this and the following points from Flinders Petrie [11]) that the second list inverts the order of Ephraim and Manasseh - the figures bracketed in the list. If we assume that only the /names /were inadvertently switched and therefore restore the Biblical order 52,700/32,500, we find that the lists match fairly well, allowing for one generation of moderate growth (or in some cases decline) between the two censuses. The only exception is the second figure, for Simeon, which declines massively from 59,300 to 22,200. Referring back to the previous chapter (Numbers 25) 'twenty and four thousand' were killed in a plague, which was reckoned to be God's punishment for whoring after foreign women and their gods. The chief culprit was 'a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites'. If we re-examine the account allowing for the 20-20 hindsight of faith, 24 'thousand' Simeonites died, therefore Simeon's leaders had committed a grievous sin. This is amply confirmed by clearly fictional features of the story (see Friedman [12] for the 'P'/Aaronid propaganda added into this story, already a 'J'/'E' composite). The two lists then agree pretty well but Flinders Petrie noticed something really incredible about them. In neither list - two dozen items in all - is the number of hundreds equal to 0, 1, 8 or 9. In only 2 or 3 cases each is this number 2, 3, 6 or 7. In no less than 14 of the 24 figures, the number of hundreds is 4 or 5. 'This can only mean that the hundreds are independent numbers in some way' and, therefore, that the 'thousands' may not be a part of the number after all. However, the lowest numbers of hundreds are not associated with the highest numbers of thousands, and vice-versa. What can this mean? 'The word translated here as thousands is /elef/; this has two meanings: 'a thousand,' and 'a group' or 'family'. Hence the statement in words of '32 /elef /2 hundred people' might mean 32 thousand 2 hundred, or 32 families 2 hundred people. In the latter sense the column of thousands would be the number of tents in a tribe and the column of hundreds the number of people.' Flinders Petrie found that the number of persons per tent was plausible on this basis - ranging from 5 to 17. We might add to his argument the fact that the three largest averages - 14, 16 and 17 - are for the two figures which do not have whole hundreds (45 /elef /650 and 43 /elef /730) and for one of the 'switched' figures, Manasseh in list 2. It is possible that these are corrupted figures, and that in the original lists each /elef /numbered between 5 and 13, or say 9+/-4. Petrie also checked whether the /elef /number within each tribe varied much. Obviously a tribe with households twice the size of another has a different set of cultural norms, which should be consistent. The agreement was fairly good - but Reuben increased from 11 to 17 per /elef/, an increase of 6, while Manasseh increased from 6 to 16! Interestingly, these are two of the three figures we had some cause to mistrust. Petrie suggested that a poor tribe would have typical groups of two parents with three children; an average tribe might accommodate two parents, two grandparents, three children and two hired herdsmen; while a rich tribe had 'more children and many retainers'. A change in fortune, as occurred in the case of Manasseh, could account for the difference in his scheme. The total number, at around '5,550 people, is quite in accord with the general number that might come out of Goshen, or that would be only just a match for the scanty population of Sinai.' Since the argument above is even more obvious graphically, I reproduce here Flinders Petrie's numerical histogram: 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 *Frequencies of different numbers of hundreds in the 24 tribal tallies (Numbers 1/26)* What is almost inconceivable is that in merely fleshing out the misunderstood 600 'thousand' of Exodus 12:37 two Priestly writers just by chance invented numbers of hundreds and thousands which recreated a non-numerical meaning for the word /elef/ and displayed fascinating internal consistencies which could have had no meaning to their authors. There remains a faint possibility that the statistical regularities noted are evidence of arcane tampering, perhaps gematria. Israeli Rabbis have re-examined the old texts and have discovered strange patterns. As an example, the first T in Genesis is followed at intervals of 49 letters (7x7, 7 being a magical number) by the letters O, R, H (actually the appropriate Hebrew equivalents of course) thus spelling TORAH. (The A is an unmarked vowel in ancient Hebrew). Exactly the same pattern is evidently found in Exodus the reverse (HROT) in Numbers and Deuteronomy and the word YHWH (Jehovah) is similarly encrypted into the opening of Leviticus. Comparable and even more complex patterns are reckoned to exist throughout the Torah and other books in the Old Testament. Pious commentators find these patterns too devious to be the work of man and claim them as evidence of divine inspiration but that is irrational. In my opinion, it is more likely that the earlier Massoretes (or their predecessors - any time back as far as Ezra) tampered with the documents in such a way that the accuracy of their transmission could be checked against these patterns. Typical errors are to drop or repeat a word or letter. Any such error would destroy the pattern, and anyone who held the key could quickly check the general accuracy of a copied page or chapter. In the time of Ezra, although there was great reverence for old texts, they were nevertheless subject to major editing and some extension. A thousand years later the function of the Massorah (the 'tradition', passed on in marginal notes) was to safeguard every letter of the old texts. Somewhere in those thousand years, the cryptic patterns must have been introduced; knowledge of them would be secret, one supposes, since an acknowledgement of editorial tampering would be antithetical to the obsession with exact transmission. A reader unfamiliar with the approach of the Massoretes might have difficulty believing in this idea that secret patterns could be embedded in the text to check for subsequent error. Here are a few of their known techniques: * They marked the middle letter, middle word and middle verse of each book and of the whole Torah. * They counted the letters, words and verses of each section of the Torah (finding in the scriptures 42,377 Alephs, for example). * They also counted the frequencies of each word and marked them (e.g. that a word only occurs once). One beautiful example of their care relates to the verses Joshua 9:1 and Numbers 21:22. The former lists the kings of 'the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite'. The latter lists the metals 'the gold and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin and the lead'. The Massoretes noticed that the distribution of the word 'and' is the same in both lists (i.e. before the 2nd and 6th nouns) and accordingly they annotated each verse to be checked against the other: 'The GOLD for the KINGS'. The point is that the initial tampering, however well-intentioned, would corrupt the text. If the alternative meaning of /elef /was forgotten in the days of Ezra, it might well be that a few of the figures in the passages quoted were treated in cavalier fashion to accommodate the self-checking device. In other words, the statistical /regularities /in Numbers 1/26 would flow from such an underlying meaning as that revealed by Flinders Petrie, while the minor /irregularities /(e.g. non-whole hundreds) are the work of the numerologically minded editor at or after the time of Ezra. However that may be, the Flinders Petrie analysis, though compelling, seems long forgotten: Gottwald tersely comments: 'The total of more than 600,000 arms-bearing males is ridiculously excessive', not noting that the numbers have any internal logic of structure. There still remains the question of whether Velikovsky's interpretation has merit. My old Gesenius [13] gives the meanings 'thousand' and 'family' (and also 'ox' of course - whence the letter /aleph /received its name, sound and representation). Velikovsky cites 'Levy, /Worterbuch uber die Talmudim und Midrashim/' for the meaning 'a prince, lord of a clan, head of a family' and it is an attractive idea. Samson might be more believable, for example, if he killed a 'chieftain' of the Philistines with the well known mandible. It is also perhaps preferable to believe that chiefs rather than families survived the battle and then manned the walls at Aphek. Hallo's meaning for the word /elef /- a /military/ unit of around 10 men, is interesting. I hope to track the reference down, because it seems possible that rather than being a useful datum in interpreting the Numbers censuses, it may be derived from them via Flinders Petrie's argument. The average /elef /in Petrie's scheme was between 9 and 10 but that included women and children. Salkeld needs the /military /element for his argument to work; it would be unfortunate if it had crept in by unwarranted extension of the term for 'family'. Salkeld considers that Moses required military training to organise an Exodus of over 25,000 souls and also to make him - younger son in a junior tribe - an acceptable leader. From my own reading of the Old Testament I am struck by the amazing lack of emphasis on primogeniture. Israel (Jacob) was a younger son. He in turn gave the 'double portion' to his younger son Joseph and it was /his /younger son Ephraim who actually inherited. Similarly, in the Davidic dynasty, David is very much a younger son, as is his heir Solomon; the third of the dynasty (Rehoboam) has not even a royal mother. (We find proto-kings in the intervening Judges period, Jephthah and Abimelech, of similarly unpromising origins.) It is clear that these are not exceptions. Some principle was at work but the writers lived in a generation which had forgotten - /autres temps, autres moeurs/ - and devised quaint rationalisations about the ploy against Esau, the disgrace of Reuben, the war crimes of Simeon and Levi, the strangely crossed hands of Israel during his death-bed blessing etc. It is in any case true that whoever and however many were involved in the Exodus, the story is shot through with threads of dissent and rebellion and there is little hint of military precision. There were many deaths among the Israelites; this is a tale of refugees fleeing a disaster, all too common in any age. (There is a school of thought that only the Levites actually sojourned in Egypt, too...) However, the argument is largely irrelevant, because Moses only has an elder brother in the priestly 'P' writings (and subsequently), /not /in 'J' and 'E'. Aaron is originally merely a 'brother' in the sense of a fellow Levite (Friedman p 190). He was the ancestor - legendary or otherwise - of the Jerusalem priesthood and was therefore exalted by them in their stories ('J'/'P') but denigrated by the Shilonite priests ('E'). Salkeld discusses Numbers 12:1, as evidence for Moses' supposed Ethiopian campaign and also his problems with his 'older brother' Aaron. This is one of the 'E' passages cited by Bimson in which Yahweh descends as a column of cloud at the entrance to the Tabernacle. In brief, Aaron and Miriam 'spoke against Moses' because he had married a 'Cushite' wife and they also questioned his authority as sole or pre-eminent mouthpiece of God. God was furious, and called Aaron and Miriam out of the holy Tabernacle to where he stood hidden in the cloud. He told them that other prophets would be addressed only in dreams and visions; Moses alone was to see God, to enjoy direct communication. Miriam was punished with leprosy, only healed when Aaron admitted that they had behaved in a foolish and sinful way; Moses then interceded with God. Salkeld assumes that the 'Cushite' wife was an Ethiopian princess acquired during Moses' career as an Egyptian general (this being his necessary qualification for leading the Exodus) and supports the idea by pointing to the pluperfect tense: 'had married'. The latter point assumes what is not the case, that Biblical Hebrew has a such a tense (or even its equivalent). More importantly, as well as the 'Cush' which is Ethiopia, 'there is also a place called Cushan in the Bible, which is a region of Midian; and Moses' wife Zipporah has already been identified as Midianite' (Friedman [14]). By the time this version of the story was put into writing, 'Cushite' was probably understood to mean Ethiopian, at least punningly, since Miriam's punishment - being turned snow-white with leprosy - is obviously meant to be ironic. However, leprosy disqualifies one from the priesthood, so that the 'E' writer, while having to acknowledge that Aaron was a priest, cast as much doubt over his fitness as possible. Salkeld suggests that Moses was actually accused here of bigamy, which is a gross anachronism. He also asserts that: 'It is difficult not to conclude that the Torah originally included an account of Moses in Nubia similar to that of Josephus. Although the redactors later excised it to minimise Egyptian aspects of Moses' career, they overlooked this one crucial associated scriptural reference.' Josephus is, of course, a much later source and it is not the method of the Old Testament Redactor (unlike the earlier JEDP writers) to subtract from holy and ancient texts but to compile them with minimal additions - hence the many contradictory doublets (like the Creation and Flood stories mentioned above). As with the increasingly magical accounts of the Pillar of Cloud, so with the 'Cushite' wife of Moses, we can see that a story has gradually attracted a more exotic interpretation. It is much more likely that the Josephus account is a folk tale based on extension of Numbers 12 (ie after the suggested original meaning of 'Cushite' in this chapter had been forgotten). After all, there was no credible motive for this supposed minimising of Moses' Egyptian dimension. Clearly the Old Testament commentator must always bear in mind the complex derivation of the text. It is a measure of the validity of the JEPDR hypothesis (using Friedman's modified order - P before D) that in examining a single story, John Bimson has reached the same conclusion without reference to the Higher Criticism. (Bimson is a force to be reckoned with in this area. I had almost abandoned /Ages in Chaos/ Vol. I, until I read his 'Revised Stratigraphy' paper, arguably the jewel in the crown of the Glasgow Conference Proceedings [15]. In his Cambridge paper, he does rely too heavily on the Redactor's suggestions of ancient and pure monotheism. I Kings 11:7 & II Kings 23:10 make it obvious that, to give just one example of several, the Ammonite god Molech was continuously worshipped at Jerusalem from the time of Solomon to the time of Josiah, with children sacrificed by fire - over a thousand years after Abraham had supposedly rejected the practice.) *References:* 1. Richard Elliott Friedman, 'Who Wrote the Bible?', 1987, Jonathan Cape edn. 1988, LONDON. 2. Gottwald, 'The Tribes of Yahweh', 1979, Maryknoll NEW YORK, Orbis. 3. Steven J. Robinson, 'On the Disproportion between Geological Time and Historical Time', /C&CR /Special, /Proceedings of the 1993 Cambridge Conference/, Ed. Bernard Newgrosh, p. 7. 4. Damien Mackey, Frank Calneggia and Paul Money, 'A Critical Reappraisal of the Book of Genesis', /C&CW /1987:1&2. 5. John Bimson, 'The Nature and Scale of an Exodus Catastrophe Re-assessed', in /Proceedings/ op. cit., p. 33. 6. Friedman, op. cit., p. 75. 7. David Salkeld, 'A Harbinger of the Exodus', in /Proceedings, /op. cit., p. 111. 8. I. Velikovsky, /Ages in Chaos/,, Doubleday, Garden City New Jersey, 1952, Vol. I, Chapter VI, section 10 ('Ships, Chieftains, or Legions'). 9. Friedman, op. cit. p. 231. 10. Ibid. p. 230. 11. M.Flinders Petrie, /Egypt and Israel/, 1910, 'new edition' 1923, London, SPCK.) 12. Friedman, op. cit. p. 202-4. 13. Gesenius /Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures/, translated into English by S.P.Tregelles, with additions from J.Furst, undated, London, Samuel Bagster and Sons Ltd. 14. Friedman op. cit. p. 78. 15. J.J. Bimson, 'Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?', /Ages in Chaos?, /Glasgow Conference Proceedings - /SISR /Vol. VI:1/3.