In a message dated 7/26/2004 9:37:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, peterkirk AT qaya.org writes:
David Rohl is also trained in archaeology and Egyptology.
By the way, I have found in Rohl's book "From Eden to Exile", p.11, a clear statement: "The fact that Shoshenk is dated solely by identifying him with Shishak - and therefore entirely through biblical chronology - comes as a bit of a shock to [Israeli archaeologists]." So Rohl has anticipated Yigal's confusion.
Yes, Rohl is trained in Egyptology, but that doesn't mean most of his arguments stand on terra firma. His "Shishak" is Ramesses II and his argument for that is that an attested nickname for a king named Ramesses is "sisi". Now that much is so, but the way Rohl accounts for the final "k" just doesn't wash. ...
... Given the tendancy of Ramesses II for self-glorification, if he had conquered Jerusalem, we would have heard about it. ...
... The only time, in my opinion, where Rohl makes any real points is when he talks about the Third Intermediate Period and it is quite possible that this era is shorter than the consensus allows. But that time is getting late in the history of ancient Egypt and assists not at all with making Ramesses II, who lived long before the TIP, a contemporary of King Rehoboam. ...
... Someone else said that Egypt was weak in the time of Akhenaten. That is not exactly true. Akhenaten had a firm enough hold in Egypt for some years--but he evidently neglected his empire. By the time of his successor, Tutankhamun, Egypt was still prosperous enough--as anyone who has ever seen the wonderful artifacts from his tomb can attest. No poor king of Egypt could afford to put a ton of gold into his coffins alone and when Egypt finally did hit the skids, ...
... Solomon got a daughter of one of the negligible rulers of Egypt of the TIP, ...
... The Egyptians were so scared the Hittites would march on their land that Tutankhamun's widow made the savvy move of asking for a son of the Hittite king to be her new husband and king of Egypt--so that at least the takeover would be bloodless. ...
... He [Akhenaten] couldn't fill his predecessor's shoes but in that time the people of Canaan were still between the hammer and the anvil--Egypt and Hatti. Despite all the rebellion there, this was no time of unification of anything in Canaan. ...
... And after that, of course, came the powerful 19th Dynasty kings who "were" militarily inclined. Which king of Judah or Israel could have possibly resisted them??
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.