Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 13.09 13/02/00 +0100, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
>> The other part is from Shalmanasser I (1274-1245)
>> and Hattushilish III, I believe, and later Tukulti-Ninurta and Thudhaliya
>> IV. The exchnge between Hattushilish and Shalmanasser contains a request
>> from Assyria about a permision to travel to the western part of Syria to
>> worship. In this letter the Assyrian king talks about brotherhood,
>> something that is flatly rejected by the Hittite king. Liverani used this
>> correspondance in Prestige and Interest, pp. 200, in his chapter on
>> brotherhood.

It is letters like these, between successive Hittite and Assyrian kings,
that nail Rohl. His chronological revisionism must fall apart. He can
reascribe the Assyrian kings involved by changing the numbers say from
Tukulti-Ninurta I to Tukulti-Ninurta II, but in doing so the order becomes
wrong for the progression of the Hittite kings.

In the letter sent by Tudkhaliya IV, written when Tukulti-Ninurta I had
just arrived on the throne, the Hittite attempts to give advice to the
Assyrian, recommending that the latter not invade a place called Papkhi.
Later, Tukulti-Ninurta I, in a royal inscription giving his parentage as
son of Shalmaneser (I) son of Adad-nirari (I) and mentioning his
contemporary Kashtiliash king of the Kassites, he calls himself the victor
of Papkhi. Obviously, this is Tukulti-Ninurta I who is contemporary with
Tudkhaliya IV, the latter being a contemporary of Ramses II.

Falsified again.

Why not try to falsify the status quo before proposing inadequate
alternative solutions?


Ian