Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

Ian,

As you see from further comments on your position, this is exactly what
people chose to do: Ignoring the evidence and turning to new ideas without
realizing the problems involved [so far i have only seen your response to my
mail this morning. Why? Because it is hard evidence? Letters from some of
the ancient people involved]. Maybe as Washburn says that Rohl was only
interested in the 3rd intermediary period [PS: Would love to see Kitchen
handling his theory. Did Kitchen ever make a review of it?], but what about
Assyrian and Hittite chronology? He would also have to telescope this with a
century or more. Something like this happened with Hittite chronology
reducing the formerly believed dark period between the old and new Hittite
kingdom considrable. As a matter of fact, comparing my old edition of
Gurney's overview with the most recent one, shows that chronology can be
changed, if the material is handled correctly. However, the synchronisms
between Hittite, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian rulers are so profuse in
number in the LBA and at the beginning of the IA that Rohl's job is a very
hard one indeed. However, to the specialist in chronology to prepare the
revies if they think it worth while.

Of course if Joshua made the sun stand still, it might be possible.

NPL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [SMTP:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
> Sent: Sunday, 13 February, 2000 14:55
> To:   Biblical Hebrew
> Subject:      Re: FW: Just a clarification
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.