...I want to make just one point here, which is that Rohl is not just one man working on his own, but is part of a community of scholars working on a New Chronology from a variety of different perspectives. Among those named in "From Eden to Exile" are Peter van der Veen, working on the Iron Age in Israel; Dr John Bimson; Dr Bernard Newgrosh, an expert on Mesopotamian history; the astronomers Wayne Mitchell and Dr David Lappin who have provided data on eclipses etc. Rohl may be the front man, but there is a team who share at least a large part of his understanding of the chronology.
But these "scholars"--and I don't know why you cast doubt on them by
putting this word in quotes--don't simply say "Oh that Rohl, he is a
boat-rocking trouble-maker" but give reasoned arguments contra him. I
I put the word in quotes because I was quoting someone else. And with the exception of Kitchen, the "boat-rocking trouble-maker" is the most common characterization I have seen out of his critics, and Kitchen is the only one I have seen who truly gives "reasoned arguments." At this point, I'm still undecided between the two, but IMNSHO they both make good points.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.