David Rohl and His Errors of Ancient Chronology - LexiLine Journal 531

Normally, being the moderator of this list, I do not approve of emails which link to commercially sold items.

However, I did approve the previous posting by a list member because David Rohl is important for the study of the History of Civilization in recognizing that there are serious defects in the mainstream chronology of ancient eras.

Let it be known, however, that I personally do not buy Rohl's analysis at all - and I have read his books.
In my opinion - he erroneously moves the chronology forward in time - which is a capital mistake - rather than moving chronology - correctly - backward.

If Rohl would try to correct his chronology by matching the Exodus with the explosion of the volcano Santorin ca. 1627 BC, he would be on the right track.

I do have Rohl to thank for my knowledge of the work of Artapanus, who wrote a biography of Moses in ancient days and stated clearly that Moses was born in the reign of Pharaoh Chaneferre - which puts the birth of Moses at around 1700 BC - that is also the correct date in my estimation (ca. 1707 BC), which puts Exodus at ca. 1627 BC when, according to the Bible, Moses was 80 years old.

Rohl's moving of the chronology forward is totally false. Why Rohl does not try to match the Biblical and Pharaonic chronologies by assuming that Artapanus was writing the truth is a mystery to me. How can Rohl ignore this kind of evidence - evidence which he himself initially presented!!? No unbiased researcher can do so. No one. The key to finding historical truth is to be neutral in your judgments. You have to FIRST reconstruct chronology based on the available written history - and that is the Bible and Artapanus - which confirm each other. Only if that does not work - but it DOES work - can you try alternative approaches.

Nevertheless, there may people out there who would be interested in reading someone other than myself who also correctly recognizes that mainstream scholars are clueless about chronology. Still, as long as Rohl moves chronology forward, his efforts are a complete waste of time.