Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Ian,
> Pardon me if I seem slightly underwhelmed by the puerile Velikovskian
> regurgitations that Rohl has emitted, but it seems mindbogglingly clear
> that the reason that no-one in the field of Egyptology listens to his
> convolutions is that there is a tide of evidence for the status quo.

This kind of name-calling advances nothing.  This "tide of evidence 
for the status quo" reminds me of the "tide of evidence" for the 
Essene hypothesis in the DSS field.  

> First Rohl would like us to ignore the fact that Sheshonq I, who according
> to the status quo reigned for about 25 years from around 950 BCE, claims to
> have had a campaign that took him through the Negev and Palestine, the
> account of which can be found on the southern end of the pylon of Ramses I
> at the temple of Karnak. This is in order for him to make his claim that
> Shishak is not in fact Sheshonq I, but Ramses II. 

You're wrong here.  He looks Sheshonq's palestinian campaign 
straight in the eye.  

(It might be worth
> pointing out here that the cartouche for Sheshonq I reads $$nq, Sheshonq II
> $$ and Sheshonq IV reads $$q. If linguistic serendipity has anything to do
> with this, the lovers of such detail would have to go against Rohl's
> conjectures in favour of Sheshonq I.) 

How about a reference?  Simply saying something like this doesn't 
give me anything to go on, Ian.

> However, why should anyone want to revise Egyptian chronology (other than
> because such sensation sells)? It would seem because it makes things seem a
> little more acceptable to fundamentalist Christians who have been bearing
> the brunt of a more systematic approach to the pursuit of history, which
> had shaken the pillars of received wisdom about the historicity of the 
> bible.

Here we go again with the name-calling.  Rohl hardly falls in to 
such a category, Ian, and your constant appeal to this idea seems 
like nothing more than a smokescreen.  Why would anyone want 
to revise it?  Why would anyone want to question the Essene 
hypothesis?  Why would anyone want to question the status quo 
about meanings of certain terms or phrases?  It's called science, 
Ian, and if the status quo is so utterly right, why do people continue 
to write dissertations in the field of biblical and ANE studies?  This 
is a cop-out, an easy pot-shot at a convenient target.

> Such a redating as implied by Rohl's bringing of Ramses II to the beginning
> of the first millennium BCE would have profound effects on world history,
> not just with internal Egyptian history, which is being asked to absorb
> about three hundred years at the late end!

Once again you're demonstrating that you haven't read the book.  
Your comments make it clear that you're operating from secondary 
sources.

> Let me just mention some of the historical links between Egypt and the ANE.

[snip]
> I have listed a number of clearly datable historical links between Egypt
> and the ANE. 

"Clearly datable" how?  That's the crux of the whole matter!

>If we are to believe Rohl, all these events are misdated,

Correct.  And it's precisely because Egypt is the plumbline for 
dating all these events.  As he says, if dating of events and people 
(and pottery styles etc.) in Egypt is off, it throws the whole thing 
off.  That's the part that seems to escape you.  What's the 
foundation for dating all those "clearly datable" events you 
mentioned?  Egyptian chronology, Ian.  So you're arguing in a 
circle.  Conventional Egyptian chronology must be correct because 
it correlates with these "clearly datable" events, and these "clearly 
datable" events are "clearly datable" on the basis of conventional 
Egyptian chronology.  This kind of reasoning gets us nowhere and 
does nothing to advance our understanding.

which would imply that the historical information that we have for Hatti,
> Babylon, Assyria, Mitanni, Syria and even Greece is also misdated. 

This is hilarious.  Go read the book, Ian.  He places the earliest 
datable ANE event in the Assyrian period, and acknowledges that 
from then on we have good, solid chronology.  I repeat: go read the 
book and can the uninformed name-calling.

This is
> mindless Velikovskian revisionism running rampant. Rohl sells his works
> because he is writing to an audience that zealously wants to believe him
> and trenchantly ignores the sea of data to the contrary.

Your constant appeal to Velikovsky is tiresome, Ian.  Guilt by 
association is also not science, and continues to demonstrate just 
how much you don't really know about Rohl's approach.  You 
continue to rail at you know not what.  It's obvious you have your 
mind made up and won't let it be clouded by something as 
revolutionary as an honest reading of the book.  Therefore, I will not 
debate this with you any further.  Rail on, but it will get you 
nowhere.

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