Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Charles Hutchesson <MC2499 AT mclink.it>]

>
> Read Rohl's appendix where he addresses this evidence.
 
Sorry, Rohl's is just plain irrelevant until one can deal with the 
falsification of the standard chronology. You've already said that he writes 
that the chronological synchronization with the Assyrians is problematical. 
You've also written about him tendentiously manipulating the evidence to 
insert a name which is partially in a lacuna as significant to his 
reconstruction of things in Assyria...

(His chronology has been falsified. And here's yet another example: the 
marriage between 'Ammishtamru II of Ugarit and the daughter of Benteshina of 
Amurru was "ratified" by Tudkhaliya IV the well-known Hittite king of Ramses 
II's time. We also have a communication that places Tukulti-ninurta I at the 
same time! There are other indications from Ugarit, a city destroyed by the 
sea peoples.)


Ian

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:     Peter Kirk [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org]
> > Sent:     Monday, 14 February, 2000 18:28
> > To:     Biblical Hebrew
> > Cc:     b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> > Subject:     Re: FW: Just a clarification
> >
> > 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;
> >
>      But it is extremely important in this connection and it 
> formed one
> of the bases of the reconstruction of the chronology of the ancient 
> Near
> East when it started. By disregarding the synchronisms Rohl is 
> simply
> sidesteppinmg instead of addressing the most important kind of 
> evidence we
> possess.
>      NPL