Posted on 09/11/2002 10:03:59 PM PDT by Commie Basher
Perhaps you are right... but the modernization of ancient Egyptian and ancient Hebrew pronunciation leaves scads of room for interpretation. DJ is close to Z in sound. Rohl's book is a popular treatment of his thesis... and for the general public it makes little difference. He does point out in his text that the 'ph' was probably 'f'. I did not include that part of his analysis of the metathesis in the interests of brevity.
Thank you for the link to the review. I read that review many years ago and had forgotten it.
However, it is not an authoritative statement denying Rohl's thesis. As the review's author states "A Test of Time is a piece of work and provocative, and its author s evidences and arguments are indeed persuasive. But was I persuaded, especially regarding the New Chronology? Much of what David Rohl presents in the elaborate tapestry of Time must be received in good faith, simply because my own knowledge in so many areas he deals with is slim to non-existent.
His primary arguments seem to be some minor errors Rohl made in talking about the history of the science of Archaeology... which is not Archaeology... which most likely were errors in the source quoted by Rohl. These minor errors are not at all related to his main theses.
The use of "Ankhu" for dogs was unknown to me... but perhaps logical... dogs are much more lively than cats.
Egyptologists look with an askew glance at revising the orthodox chronology because of academic inertia. They do not want to have to revise all their text books, museum placards, and their own edifaces of relational dating. However, a theory is only as good as its agreement with the existing evidence and as it can be used to predict other non-considered but related findings... and Rohl's thesis seems to do a better job of both.
Their entire argument consists of negatives... there is no report during Ramases II reign of any plague, natural disaster of unusual size, or loss of his army. This is a circular argument... but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If Ramases II is the WRONG PHAROAH, then of course there is no evidence of the Passover. They are looking in the wrong time frame by about 200 or so years.
The Egyptologists' approach is like future historians looking for evidence of Man Landing on the Moon during the American Revolution and discovering that Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin did not mention the moon landing in their letters and documents. Not finding the evidence where they are looking, they "authoratatively' declare the moon landing never happened and congratulate each other on debunking another 'myth'.
My own impression of Roth's book is that it is really two books. One is about the revision of Egyptian chronology, which is indeed a controversial topic in its own right. The other is about evidence for the Biblical account of Joshua, Moses &c. The problem with the latter is that it creates a set of parallels with essentially no more archaeological support than there is for the traditional parallels.
There is zero substantive evidence for an exodus in the time of Sebekhotep IV, just as there is zero evidence from the time of Rameses II. Roth's only purported "hard evidence" is a bunch of graves from what he claims, very dubiously, to be a Hebrew settlement. Lo, the Tenth Plague! Excuse me? How can a bunch of adult graves from a Hebrew settlement be evidence for the deaths of Egyptian children?
Moreover, this redating creates its own problems. Pharaoh pursued the fleeing Hebrews with chariots, the Bible tells us. Unfortunately, the Egyptians didn't adopt the war chariot until Dynasty XVIII, post Hyksos; this is attested by inscriptions and wall carvings that are independent of chronology.
That said, I have no personal opinion on the historical accuracy of the Bible; that's way outsde my competence. I'll stick to Egypt, and I rather think Roth should have, too.
You are making a classic error here. The 10th plague was the death of the first born... of whatever age... not just infants or children. If I recall correctly it wasn't just the first born of humans but all domestic animals as well.
Khanaferre Sobekhotep IV is identified by Rohl (not Roth) with the Pharoah of Moses birth, not the Exodus. The Exodus, according to Rohl, occurred 7 Pharoah's later under Dudimose who may have also been referred to as Thutmose.
In regard to the mass graves found, Rohl's reasoning was that something occurred that required quick burial with little or no regard for religious niceties. The burials are numerous and indicative of some catastrophe where the sheer numbers of dead overwhelmed the religious burial system.
Unfortunately, the Egyptians didn't adopt the war chariot until Dynasty XVIII, post Hyksos; this is attested by inscriptions and wall carvings that are independent of chronology.
This is proving to be possibly erroneous.
German Scholar Wolfgang Helck reports a portion of a 13th Dynasty stele shows King's son and Commander of the Edfu Army, Prince Khounsuemwaset, and his wife seated in chairs. Under her chair are emblems indicating she is head of the household... and under his chair are a pair of Charioteer's gloves indicating he was a charioteer. The Charioteer's gloves were used in later carvings to indicate rank and were also distinctive on later carvings showing actual charioteers. The father of this charioteer prince was Dudimose. In addition, the remains of domesticated horses have been found in strata associated with the 13th dynasty.
Incidentally, distinctly Hyksos graves have been excavated with horses ritually sacrificed at the head of the buried person. This may indicate that Hyksos also had horses and hence, chariots.
The conventional explanation is a simple plague, which seems to fit the evidence - mass graes, hasty buriel, the settlement subsequently deserted. That's a classic scenario.
On the "charioteers gloves" claim, I just think that's too far-fetched. A picture of a charot would be convincing. But the symbolism of accoutrements changes over time, so for all we know those gloves may have indicated social rank or something. After all, modern air force officers wear many accoutrements that predate the invention of powered flight.
I think they have no lock on closed minds. There are few areas of history or theology which have not been encased in concrete (and unchangeable lecture notes), totally immune to new findings and new analysis. {ggg}.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.