Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Peter wrote:
> Dear Ian,
> 
> You make it all too obvious that you haven't read Rohl. When you write 
> "His basics seem to be if it conflicts with the bible then reinvent", 
> I could retort that it takes one to know one, but in fact (as far as I 
> have read, which is only part of the way through his first book) Rohl 
> is discrediting not the Bible but rather the interpretations and 
> interrelationships which scholars over the centuries have put on it. 

I haven't been following this thread, but I have read Rohl and I have 
to admit that his material about the current misinterpretation of the 
Third Intermediate Period has convinced me.  His use of the 
inscriptional, documentary and other evidence is very carefully 
thought out and presented, even in what is supposed to be a non-
scholarly book, and I think he makes his case.  The stuff that he 
does beyond that I don't care to try and evaluate: whether the 
Labayanu of the Amarna letters is Saul, whether the tomb he 
suggests really is that of Joseph, and in particular his recent stuff 
about Eden etc. seems more than a little far-fetched to me.  But 
his essential work on the chronology of Egypt is convincing.  I 
didn't realize, until I read his book, how much of our ANE 
chronology is dependent on Egypt, and as he said, if that's off the 
whole region is off.  I think it's a pity he's gone so far into other 
unrelated topics, as Ian mentions; if he had stuck to this, I think he 
could have been taken seriously and even revolutionized our 
understanding of ANE chronology.  Extracting the good material, I 
think this should happen anyway.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo."