Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

In this way you may be able to falsify Rohl's general redating (though 
you also need to explain his evidence from Apis bull datings etc etc). 
However, I should remind you that this does not falsify Rohl's 
identifications of biblical and archaeological events, except for 
those who are committed to the chronology of Thiele etc based on the 
internal biblical evidence. Rohl actually has two quite distinct 
theses, which are link only by Thiele's questionable chronology.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: FW: Just a clarification
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    13/02/2000 14:55


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: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.