Rohl's Chronology-Deconstruction

David Washburn dwashbur at
Thu Aug 16 22:02:28 EDT 2001

Walter has once again missed my point.  Offlist he suggested that Rohl
must also deal with datable materials and sites in Canaan and other
places, but that is precisely Rohl's point: about 95% of the dating of
those areas is based on chronology established in Egypt.  So if the
Egyptian chronology is off, purported datings in other regions that are
dependent on it are going to be meaningless for trying to "deconstruct"
him.  I am amazed at the constant knee-jerk reactionism that groups like
this display whenever his name comes up.  The only one who has actually
tried to put forth any refutation based on serious chronological
investigation is Ian, and I don't know enough about Assyrian chronology to
interact with that (plus I lost the material about 6 months ago in a virus
attack).  Everyone else just points to Kitchen, to which I can only say:
so what?  When did Kitchen become infallible?  What makes his analysis
superior?  Why are ANE scholars and other interested parties so afraid of
a new idea?  The whole thing is quite baffling, frankly.  Nevertheless,
since Walter is clearly trying to skirt my main point and label anybody
who takes Rohl seriously with the question-begging title "CONSERVATIVE"
(why the capitals?  Liberal or conservative has nothing to do with
accurately representing the person you are supposedly deconstructing), so
I will not respond to him on this topic any further.  I have made my point
that he missed Rohl's primary thesis, and that's good enough for me.

> I thought some on this list might have an interest in what two CONSERVATIVE
> SCHOLARS, both of whom WHO BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE and who have argued that
> archaeology confirms "the truth of the Bible," have to say "contra" Rohl's
> New Chronology.
> They are Dr. Bryant Wood (trained in Archaeology) and Dr. Gerald Aardsma
> (trained in Radiocarbon dating)-
> Dr. Bryant Wood-
> Dr. Gerald Aardsma-
> I would also like to take this opportunity to "publicly thank" Peter
> Kirk -of this list- for pointing out errors in my Rohl CONCLUSION summary. I
> had stated -in error- ALL of these places had come into being no earlier
> than Iron I times, when I should have said they ALL possess Iron debris,
> some coming into being in Chalcolithic, Early Bronze and Middle Bronze (None
> possessing Late Bronze Age debris). I have made the corrections on the
> article posted at my website
> All the best, Walter
> Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
> Walldorf by Heidelberg
> Baden-Wurttemburg, Germany
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [dwashbur at]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at

Dave Washburn
Why do the job right when you can do it again?

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list