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.
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.