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

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.

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".

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 think that you will find that the assessment of the meaning of 'Apiru has more to do with Sumerian and Hittite references than with the Amarna letters.The term is too widespread to be restricted to the Biblical Hebrew people.

As I have stated the widespread use of the word is one important factor. Another is the way that it is used. Neither of these are dependent on the specific chronology.Let me also remind you that even according to Rohl much of the original work was NOT motivated by bias against the Bible - just the opposite. Rohl attributes what he sees as errors to researchers being too quick to take their finds as confirmation of the Bible.

quote:

---

The point, as I will demonstrate in upcoming posts, is that the consistency between the Armana letters and Kings/Chronicles is undeniable.

---

Presumably you mean 1 & 2 Samuel - unless you are using the Septuagint.But let's start with the background. The Amarna letters from Canaanite rulers indicate that they still at least pay lip service to Egyptian rule of the region. Even Labayu claims to be a loyal servant as his father and grandfather were before him (EA 253) (And does that not suggest a hereditary monarch whose father and grandfather ruled before him ?)How is the Egyptian dominance of the region reflected in the Bible ? Does Judges mention it ? Or 1 Samuel ? If the Egyptians are expected to intervene in the struggles referred to in the Amarna Letters is it not likely that they would have done so in earlier conflicts - the battles with the Philistines in 1 Samuel, before the crowning of Saul, for instance ?In short does the background history given by the Bible match up with what we can infer from the Amarna Letters ?

You don't explicity address the issue of Egyptian dominance. My own quick investigation found quite a few references to God bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, but none to Egyptian rule. So we have a quite significant mismatch between the Bible and the political background of the Amarna letters.One translation of the relevant part of EA253 is as follows

quote:

---

Look, I am servant of the king, like my father and my grandfather, I was servant of the king already before. I have not sinned, I am not guilty.

---

I'm a bit surprised that you don't have ready access to the text. EA253 is one of the letters written by Labayu. Shouldn't it already be part of your analysis ?

Egypt is at a relatively weak perid at the time of the letters - but that doesn't change the fact that it was strong in the recent past. If your dating is right we should expect to see references to that strength in the parts of the Bible dealing with the immediately preceding events (e.g. later chapters of Judges up to the crowining of Saul) as well as some indication of the current situation where there was still hope and fear of Egyptian intervention. And we don't see that.As for EA253 it is not the sucking up, it is the explicit reference to Labayu's father or grandfather which pretty strongly suggests that their service would have been known at the Egyptian court. As I stated the most natural fit would be a hereditary monarch.