What I am talking about here is well described in David Rohl's book "The Lost Testament" but also in many of his other books. I am looking for views at to whether Rohl is right, or is he just wrong?
His books make convincing reading to a non-scholar and many of his conclusions and attempts to reconcile biblical history with archaeology appear sensible and reasonable.
However one of the problems for me is that he accepts that much existing carbon-dating will be out. He doesn't see that as necessarily a problem as carbon dating is dependent on artificial points of reference that may themselves be out. I see that as a weak argument for dealing with the carbon-dating issue. Wiki gives a good summary of his theory here:
en.wikipedia.org
"Rohl's "New Chronology" is an alternative chronology of the ancient Near East developed by English Egyptologist David Rohl and other researchers beginning with A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History in 1995. It contradicts mainstream Egyptology by proposing a major revision of the established Egyptian chronology, in particular by re-dating Egyptian kings of the Nineteenth through Twenty-fifth Dynasties, bringing forward conventional dating by up to 350 years. Rohl asserts that the New Chronology allows him to identify some of the characters in the Hebrew Bible with people whose names appear in archaeological finds. "
"Amélie Kuhrt, head of Ancient Near Eastern History at University College London, in one of the standard reference works of the discipline, notes "Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework [...], but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination."
etc etc,.
One of the things Rohl majors on is his identification of the biblical Shishaq with Ramses II, instead of the traditional Shoshenq 1.
Recasting the biblical Shishaq as Ramses II is vigorously disputed by many.
Wiki gives an account of the Shishaq argument as followed:
"Most Egyptologists accept Shishaq as an alternative name for Shoshenq I. Rohl disputes that Shoshenq's military activity fits the biblical account of Shishaq on the grounds that the two kings' campaigns are completely different and Jerusalem does not appear in the Shoshenq inscription as a subjected town.[13] He also points out that Ramesses did campaign against Israel and that he had a short form of his formal name which was in use in Palestine.[14] That name was Sysw, whilst the early Hebrew alphabet did not distinguish between S and SH, so the biblical name may have originally been Sysq. Rohl has also argued that the qoph ending may be a later misreading of the early sign for waw which in the 10th century was identical to the 7th century sign for qoph. Thus 7th-century Sysq may have been a mistaken later reading of 10th-century Sysw.
"The theory that Ramesses II (hypocoristicon Sysa), rather than Shoshenq I, should be identified with the biblical Shishak is not widely accepted.
"Kevin Wilson agrees only partially with David Rohl. Wilson accepts that there is a mismatch between the triumphal relief of Shoshenq I and the biblical description of King Shishak. However, he does not think that this discrepancy gives sufficient reason for doubting the identification of Shoshenq I with King Shishak of the Bible. Wilson writes about Shoshenq's inscription, "Contrary to previous studies, which have interpreted the relief as a celebration of his Palestine campaign, neither the triumphal relief nor any of its elements can be utilized as a source for historical data about that campaign. … the triumphal relief can unfortunately play no role in the reconstruction of Shoshenq’s campaign." Wilson's view is not supported by Kenneth Kitchen who states: "That the great topographical list of Shoshenq I at Karnak is a document of the greatest possible value for the history and nature of his campaign against Judah and Israel is now clearly established beyond all dispute, thanks to the labours expended on that list by a series of scholars. However, the composition and interpretation of the list still require further examination and clarification".] Other leading scholars who have studied the campaign relief point out that it is indeed a unique list of subjected towns and not a copy of an earlier campaign by a more celebrated pharaoh. This originality makes it far more likely that it is a true representation of cities and locations brought under Egyptian control by the military activities of Shoshenq I."
His books make convincing reading to a non-scholar and many of his conclusions and attempts to reconcile biblical history with archaeology appear sensible and reasonable.
However one of the problems for me is that he accepts that much existing carbon-dating will be out. He doesn't see that as necessarily a problem as carbon dating is dependent on artificial points of reference that may themselves be out. I see that as a weak argument for dealing with the carbon-dating issue. Wiki gives a good summary of his theory here:
New Chronology (Rohl) - Wikipedia
"Rohl's "New Chronology" is an alternative chronology of the ancient Near East developed by English Egyptologist David Rohl and other researchers beginning with A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History in 1995. It contradicts mainstream Egyptology by proposing a major revision of the established Egyptian chronology, in particular by re-dating Egyptian kings of the Nineteenth through Twenty-fifth Dynasties, bringing forward conventional dating by up to 350 years. Rohl asserts that the New Chronology allows him to identify some of the characters in the Hebrew Bible with people whose names appear in archaeological finds. "
"Amélie Kuhrt, head of Ancient Near Eastern History at University College London, in one of the standard reference works of the discipline, notes "Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework [...], but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination."
etc etc,.
One of the things Rohl majors on is his identification of the biblical Shishaq with Ramses II, instead of the traditional Shoshenq 1.
Recasting the biblical Shishaq as Ramses II is vigorously disputed by many.
Wiki gives an account of the Shishaq argument as followed:
"Most Egyptologists accept Shishaq as an alternative name for Shoshenq I. Rohl disputes that Shoshenq's military activity fits the biblical account of Shishaq on the grounds that the two kings' campaigns are completely different and Jerusalem does not appear in the Shoshenq inscription as a subjected town.[13] He also points out that Ramesses did campaign against Israel and that he had a short form of his formal name which was in use in Palestine.[14] That name was Sysw, whilst the early Hebrew alphabet did not distinguish between S and SH, so the biblical name may have originally been Sysq. Rohl has also argued that the qoph ending may be a later misreading of the early sign for waw which in the 10th century was identical to the 7th century sign for qoph. Thus 7th-century Sysq may have been a mistaken later reading of 10th-century Sysw.
"The theory that Ramesses II (hypocoristicon Sysa), rather than Shoshenq I, should be identified with the biblical Shishak is not widely accepted.
"Kevin Wilson agrees only partially with David Rohl. Wilson accepts that there is a mismatch between the triumphal relief of Shoshenq I and the biblical description of King Shishak. However, he does not think that this discrepancy gives sufficient reason for doubting the identification of Shoshenq I with King Shishak of the Bible. Wilson writes about Shoshenq's inscription, "Contrary to previous studies, which have interpreted the relief as a celebration of his Palestine campaign, neither the triumphal relief nor any of its elements can be utilized as a source for historical data about that campaign. … the triumphal relief can unfortunately play no role in the reconstruction of Shoshenq’s campaign." Wilson's view is not supported by Kenneth Kitchen who states: "That the great topographical list of Shoshenq I at Karnak is a document of the greatest possible value for the history and nature of his campaign against Judah and Israel is now clearly established beyond all dispute, thanks to the labours expended on that list by a series of scholars. However, the composition and interpretation of the list still require further examination and clarification".] Other leading scholars who have studied the campaign relief point out that it is indeed a unique list of subjected towns and not a copy of an earlier campaign by a more celebrated pharaoh. This originality makes it far more likely that it is a true representation of cities and locations brought under Egyptian control by the military activities of Shoshenq I."
