Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: More Rohl rot
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    30/09/1999 14:55

<snip>
>
>PK: Eclipse timings can now be calculated extremely accurately by 
>computer. I admit I don't know quite how accurately. Do you know 
>enough to cast reasonable doubt on the calculations of Wayne Mitchell 
>using the programs of Professor Peter Huber of MIT?

Total eclipses happen relatively frequently for a single zone (remember 
that a total eclipse seen recently in England was also seen here in Italy), 
more than once every hundred years seems to be a good average. If the 
Ugaritic writer is actually referring to an eclipse -- it is still at this 
moment only a figment of Rohl's imagination (was the writer actually 
referring to an eclipse, if so was he being literal, if so was he 
accurate?) -- then there is no necessity for it to have been when Rohl 
wanted it to have been. This is merely his desires and have no necessary 
connection with what happened. If I dug up my old astronomical program, it 
did eclipses all I had to do was feed in the location and it would provide 
them. Nothing startling there. (It doesn't take a professor to do the 
calculations. This is merely show for people who don't know any better.)

PK: According to Rohl, the MIT professor's eclipse program showed that 
this was the only possible eclipse at Ugarit near to sunset during 
April/May during the whole second millennium BCE. If you think you can 
falsify this claim with your own program, please go ahead and try. By 
the way, "It has been calculated that a total solar eclipse occurs 
only once every three hundred and sixty years (on average) at any 
point on earth." By the way, on August 11 a TOTAL eclipse was not seen 
anywhere in Italy, I have the map to prove it.

<snip>

Strange that no scholar sticks his neck out to support this Rohl 
conjecture. Peter, it is absurd to hope that you can make someone called by 
some name be the person you want him to be just because of a few linguistic 
similarities. There are those People who want to see Joseph as Yuya and 
those who want to see him as Yusef-Har and those who want to see him as 
someone else. This is incredibly poor scholarship.

PK: For the record, Rohl does not make any identification of Joseph by 
name. The name of the person whose tomb he has found is unknown. If 
you want to know how he has made this identification, read the book!

<snip>

Here's a rehash of Ahlstrom, p245-247, that reflects on the rubbish about 
Saul:

When Lab'ayu was king of Shechem, Abdi-Hepa was ruler of Jerusalem (EA 
287). Lab'ayu was captured, taken to Acco and was to be sent to Egypt by 
ship (EA 245). He bribed his way out, but was killed at Gina (south-west of 
Hazor). Lab'ayu was succeeded by two sons. One of Abdi-Hepa's letters 
mentions their alliance with the king of Gezer. Oh, and Abdi-Hepa complains 
about the Nubian troops stationed in Jerusalem.

1) Lab'ayu's death is nothing like that of Saul's. 
2) More than one son survived Lab'ayu
3) The king of Jerusalem during and after Lab'ayu was Abdi-Hepa
   (and I bet he must have been David, right???)
4) The structure of the zone of Palestine differs completely
   from that portrayed in I Samuel. Each town had its own ruler.
5) Nubian troops in Jerusalem??

PK: Thank you for this rehash. Rohl's interpretations for your 
information: 1) Gina is Jenin which is the nearest town to Mount 
Gilboa; Saul was killed not at Gina, but by men of Gina in the battle 
at Gilboa. 2) One son and one son-in-law, Ishbaal (= Mutbaal) and 
David. 3) No, Abdi-Hepa was the last Jebusite ruler. 4) Precisely 
which towns in the hill country, other than Jerusalem? Rohl has 
Labayu/Saul as ruler of the hill country (apart from Jerusalem) and 
parts of Transjordan. Shechem is in his territory, but not his 
capital.

It's always worth reading the status quo. It might be wrong, but it is the 
standard you measure by until it is revoked.


Cheers,


Ian

Peter Kirk