Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

There are two reasons why I am avoiding discussion of the Assyrian 
chronological evidence:

1) It is not directly relevant to the part of Rohl's thesis which I 
have presented, which is largely independent of absolute dating;

2) I admit that I am not competent to discuss it, so all I can do is 
accept the data as you present it.

As for your "Why Saul? Why not Jeroboam?" question, it is a good one. 
I suggest again that you should not comment on the lack of evidence 
for Rohl's theories if you have not read his full presentation. My 
presentation of his views is incomplete and inadequate. Rohl's own 
answer would no doubt depend partly on his absolute dating and partly 
on the general correspondence he makes between the Amarna period and 
its aftermath with the United Monarchy period. There is also the 
matter of Rameses II's attack on Shalem in his eighth year (I think, 
from memory now) which Rohl identifies with the attack on Jerusalem by 
"Shishak" in the time of Rehoboam. Not conclusive, maybe, but part of 
a consistent overall picture, according to Rohl.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: FW: Just a clarification
Author:  <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
Date:    13/02/2000 23:32


and finally, Peter you are not addressing the evidence presented, you are 
constantly evading a discussion about the data presented. I do not know why. 
Maybe you simple have made up your mind. I will attack you in person, why 
should I, but I still you continuously evading a discussion of the data. How 
can you bypass synchronisms presented by letters exchanged between perosns 
who are crucial for establishing the chronology?

As to the other mail about Saul and Lab'ayu: Why Saul? Why not Jeroboam? At 
least you have the seal of Shema the servant of Jeroboam with a well-known 
imprint of a lion. Why not--when you are at it-- identify Jeroboam with 
Lab'ayu? They both had something to do with Shechem. I am of course joking, 
but I really see more evidence here than for Rohl's ideas.

NPL

<snip>