David Rohl's Research (Re: 'A Test Of Time', re: Egyptian chronology)

Ok this is really for Amlodhi and anyone else more familiar with Egyptology than me - I was re-reading David Rohl's "A Test of Time" a few days ago, and I began to wonder just how relevent his work actually is. The general opinion is that his revision of Egyptian Chronology is unworkable.I have these questions, then:Is the New Chronology he proposes unworkable, and why?
If his Chronology is unworkable, are the problems he points out with the current Chronology real or imagined?
Is he actually looking for something to prove the bible or not?ThanksThe Rock Hound

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.Added the "(Re: 'A Test Of Time', re: Egyptian chronology)" part to the topic title.Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-20-2004]

I'm no expert either but Rohl's chronology has serious problems - especially the Assyrian records. I hesitate to definitively pronounce Rohl's chronology as "unworkable" but the problems appear to be very serious.There's a set of links here covering an exchange of essays:
Stijlvol interieur in Scandinavisch design BGA.NLThe problems with the current chronology are "real" - in that the evidence Rohl refers to exists. However there are alternative explanations (in the essays the reply amounts to "prove it!" - which is not very good when Rohl's chronology has worse problems).Rohl certainly has the same tendency to jump to conclusions based on the Bible that he condemns in the "Biblical Archaeologists" - but he certainly isn't the sort of fundamentalist Christian who wants to prove the Bible literally true. A better comparison might be Velikovsky, although Rohl is certainly not that far from reality.

I'm happy to continue discussing Rohl's chonology here? Is this the right place?Assuming it is, I'll repost the data from the other thread comparing the two chronologies:STANDARD: Old K (2650-2150BC), Middle K (2050-1700BC), New K (1550-1100BC)
REVISED: Old K (2100-1600BC), Middle K (1750-1450BC), New K (1050-600BC)As discussed earlier, Rohl's chronology makes it quite plausable that the Exodus (Biblically 1450BC) destroyed the Middle Kingdom.Sesostris III is recognized as a period of slavery in Egypt and he represents the 12th dynasty and last pharaoh of the Middle Kingdom. He lines up quite nicely with the Exodus pharaoh 'who didn't know Joseph'(Ex 1:8).It' the same story with Solomon. Go to the layers of 950BC in the new chronology and you find evidence of a glorious city.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-16-2005 11:35 PM

Hi TB,The first thing I noticed about yor post is that you havent provided a single syllable of supporting information from Rohl's work. Could you perhaps elaborate a little for the people who are not familiar with his hypothesis?For example: You do not say what is it that Rohl bases his new chronology on? What evidence does he cite to support these new dates? Can you summarise the reasons why, as this is quite a meaningless statement? Many pharaoh’s would line up nicely with the pharaoh who didn’t know Joseph, so what are the arguments for recognising Sesosteris III as the pharaoh of the Exodus. It is fine and well that you say that Rohl claims this, but why should we accept these claims? This makes no sense whatsoever.Maybe you could summarise the points that you think are convincing in Rohl’s chronology, then maybe you could tell us why Rohl’s new chronology is universally rejected by the academic community. Why is it that no mainstream archaeologist/Egyptologist accepts Rohl’s new chronology?Cheers.Brian.

Maybe you are very busy TB, and that's fine, but I would appreciate if you could let me know if you have any intention of providing some of the information from Rohl's book to support your claims here?Brian.

It's coming . .Rohl points out that the initial errors were made by Victorian-era Bible-bleieving archeologists. They saw a possible link between the Pharoah that raided Jerusalem in Solomon's time and 'locked in the chronologies' there. The point is this has never been critically analysed in modern times. It turns out the early Bible-believers were probably wrong.Additionally the dynasties were simply lsited serially rather than in some cases in parallel. In particular there is clear evidence of parellisim in Tanis during the TIP (Tjhird Intermediary Period).He also astronomically fixes up the chronology with an eclipse.More to come . .This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-23-2005 02:44 AM

I'm most of the way through Rohl's book and the Saul/David/Solomon evidence in the middle chapters of the book are truly fascinating and more than convincing.Let me begin to take you through it (and check out this concise summary of the evidence from the book on the web too: David Rohl's "New Chronology")Why do I say the Saul/David/Solomon evidence is impossible to deny?Anyone who knows their Sunday school school stories about these kings of Israel can recognize these figures and the chrnological events from the Amarna letters. They're a a whole series of letters from the late stages of the Eigteenth Dynasty of Egypt (conventionally 1600-1300BC) that are really undoubtedly tied by Rohl to Levanite figures including Saul, David and Solomon (1000BC). Rohl independenlty uses non-Levantine egyptological evidence to tie the late 18th dynasty to 1000BC.The Armana letters include name lists and/or actual correspondence between Egyptian Pharoahs (including Tutankhamen) and David (Dadua), Ayab (Joab), Saul = Lebaim (Labayu), Jesse (Yishay) and even the minor Israelite king for two years in-between Saul and David Ishbaal (Eshbaal)!Not only that, these names, place names (!), conquests and other events match the Sunday School stories consistently that many of us know in detail! Like David rebelling against Saul and taking a band of men who join the Philistines as mercenries. The events with Johnathon. Saul's original conquests including taking back his home town. Saul's ultimate death.And the Armana letters mention on many occasisons the Habiru (Hebrew) in Israel when mainstream chronology has them in bondage in Egypt. Mainstream this is explained as a small escaped band. It turns out the Habiru of the Amarna letters are actaully the band of mercnries that David rebelled from Saul with, not a band of pre-Exodus Hebrews!Read about it more in the link I gave above but I'll also post some of these examples in the days to come including quotes from the Aramana letters side-by-side with Scripture.It surely, undoubtedly dates the late 18th Dynasty to 1000BC, correcting the chronology by almost 400 years (given the non-Levantine egyptological and retro-astronomical evidence he gives).It's incredibly fascinating and much more convincing than the nay sayers would have you believe. I highly recommend you to read it yourself.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2005 03:24 AM

As I remember the main similarity is the names - as Rohl transliterates them. The name Rohl refers to as "Dadua" is better referred to as "Tadua". And there are no references to Philistines in the Amarna letters.The other identifications are also dubious, "habiru" had a wide application and does not refer to an ethnic group. Saul is never called "Labayu" in the Bible. And last I heard it was the Amarna letter's "Mutbaal" that was supposed to be "Ishbaal".

No it is far more. The king names and place names and events match between accounts. But I'll list it here in the days to come and we can calmly discuss it. There are numerous ways to transliterate things. But D and T are frequently interchanged. I'll have to check that one out. Even the mainstreamers associate habiru with a small band of Hebrews. I don't think that is in doubt. Your right about the ethnic group issue and the distinguishemnt between Israelite and Hebrew. 'Hebrew' was typically applied to a mixed group such as David's band (which included other ethnic groups) and often derogatarily. Even in Scripture 9 times out of 10 this is the case. True, but his keepers were referred to as 'Lions' = Lebaim and Scripture mentions that Saul was named so becasue he was 'asked for' suggesting a renaming. But Ishbaal is also referred to as Mutbaal in Scripture too.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2005 03:40 AM

quote:

---

Even the mainstreamers associate habiru with a small band of Hebrews. I don't think that is in doubt.

---

It is not in doubt that "habiru" refers to a social stratum, of mixed ethnic background (often used as mercenaries) found all over the Middle East.The only link is the assumption of an etymological association - which is far from certain. And doesn't change the fact that many "habiru" have nothing to do with Biblical Hebrews.

^ I tentatively stand by my statement that that is not the mainstream view. Let's see . .

It most certainly is in doubt, and infact, you will be hard pressed to find ANY support for such an assertion. Habiru was used as a generic term similar to Gypsy or Romany and refered to people from all over the area. Itwas also used over a long, long period from way before anything like Hebrews existed.Once again you seem to be making some pretty strong assertions of what is mainstream. It's time you supported your position. Read the Armana letters that can be found here

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

JarOK, the most common view today of the Habiru is not necessarily to equate it with Hebrew.But why is that? Only becasue it doesn't fit the conventional chronology.The point, as I will demonstrate in upcoming posts, is that the consistency between the Armana letters and Kings/Chronicles is undeniable.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2005 09:49 AM

That will be interesting. Nope. It is because the evidence shows that it was a generic term. It doesn't fit the Biblical chronology or mythology. But then so far many things we've discovered do not fit the Biblical tales.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion