Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Banyai Michael" <banyai AT t-online.de>]

I must comply with Prof. NP Lemche about Rohl even if I mean there are 
serious grounds to question the chronology.

> If Rohl got into a serious
> dialogue with the people he seemingly is opposition to, the case may be
> different. To go after Rohl in any serious way is at the present wild goose
> hunting.

His method is unconsistent and jumpy. Of course, it can not be expected 
from a revision proposal of this scale to solve on the spot all problems. 
This would be unrealistic. But at least to stress the still open problems.  
One has to play the game with open cards. A matter of honestity.

A discussion of Rohls or others chronologic revision doesn´t make sense so 
long there are no new arguments to be brought. We have no ground to chew 
the 1000-th time the same stuff again.
This is no revisioned chronology fan club, I hope, but I suppose all are 
interested in new original ideas.

Best regards,

Banyai Michael