"JTEM" <jtem01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:e344c3ba-0a89-4c21-ab9b-ee7d21d8d7cc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cmcc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>> ****tions of David Rohl's
>
> Rohl is a dishonest skank, a s**** oil salesmen.
>
OMG!!!! JTEM!!! Amazing you'd say that?
A GREAT SALSEMAN, my view too!!
David Rohl is charming and charismatic! For sure. I loved his
presentation
so much that I went out and paid for the CD. Of course, I know lots about
Babylonian and Persian history, areas Rohl decidedly stays away from so
his
chronology theories were doomed from the start. But still, he brings
forward some interesting ideas and rare research, like a picture of
Solomon
and his Egyptian wife which I believe is an accurate reference.
But then he consistently and very inaccurately kept saying there "was no
LBA
Jericho" for anyone to conquer and then drug Kathleen Kenyon into that
*****sment when Kathleen Kenyon definitively does indicate there was an
LBA
Jericho and that THAT is precisely when the Israelites came in and
conquered
Jericho.
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is
a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:
"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."
This completely destroyed his presentation in my opinion. Either he was
incompetent and didn't know Kenyon had set the Israelites to LBA Jericho,
or
he was deliberately misquoting her. I had to buy his book to find out
more
detail. But since this was such a key stepping stone for him to get away
from any LBA "scenarios", he doesn't bother dismissing Kenyon or LBA, but
simply keeps repeating that there was nothing there. Which is just a LIE
basically. I couldn't understand it. He seemed so sincere and appealing
to reason. The only other explanation, which is something I wanted to
resist, is that the, indeed, that is precisely what someone who was a BOOK
SALESMAN would do. That's exactly what I thought but was too polite to
really say that.
But indeed that is exactly what he ends up being after all. A guy after
the
bucks! There is a market out there for people who want to believe the
Bible, he believes he can make the archaeology work with the Bible better
if
****shak becomes Rameses, and he uses the KTU 1.78 eclipse (which can't be
dated to any other date but 1375 BCE) to move the Amarna Period down some
363 years. It all sounded so good! And David is well covered, very
professional on all points and I was impressed. Then he betrayed me with
this dishonest use of Kenyon. He breaks the ethical rules by quoting
from Kenyon so extensively to get past LBA but ignores here own
conclusions
with respect to the Israelites conquering at that time and NOT when he
wants
them to. It was rather SHOCKING. BUT THEN... if he's just after the
money,
then it makes sense. It doesn't make academic sense, but it makes
commercial sense.
So that's exactly what I think of Rohl too. He's another salesman out
there
working it, putting out beautiful book after book.
But I first got that idea about him while dealing with the KTU 1.78
astrotext. You're into Egypt? PAY ATTENTION! This text has Egyptian
astronomical references!!! Egypt was over Ugarit at the time. It's
quite
possible that the text itself was actually created by the Egyptian
emmissary
that would have been assigned to Ugarit. Egypt had an advanced astronomy
program and would have sent any responsible court people to their
universities by now anyway.
At any rate the correct interpretation of the KTU 1.78 when you consider
the
Egyptian concpet of it is:
Hour 6, day of new moon, Hiyyaru; The sun entered HER GATE in Reshep.
On the back was a liver reading. Liver readings often accompanied eclipse
readings, especially if the entire eclipse was not clearly seen, perhaps
from clouds or being in progress when the sun rises, etc. So definitely
an
eclipse referece.
Egypt had the concept of the HOUR, which explains the reference to SIX,
and
in the right order two: HOUR, DAY, MONTH. Simple. But if "btt" really
is
SIX, the clipse must occur in the sixth hour which is only between 5-6
a.m.
and that only occurs with the 1375 BCE eclipse, which was the original
assignment and occurs during the conventional Amarna Period for Akhenaten.
But the "sixth hour" suggests EGYPTIAN concept of the hour and the count
of
the hours of the sun beginning at midnight.
The second line is even more Egyptian. Here you have the sun associated
with traveling through gates, and most pertinently HER GATE. In Egyptian
cosmology, evey night the goddess Hathor swallows the sun in her mouth at
the horizon and it then travels through 12 gates during the night until it
emerges through the final gate, Hathor's vulva, at sunrise, being reborn
again!
http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehsBovineFormsImages.html
Two sycamore trees were represented for this event at sunrise, the
sycamore
trees representing the vulva of Hathor, her last gate, and thus: HER gate!
So all the text is saying when it says, the sun entered Her Gate in
Reshep,
is that the sun rose in Reshep. Reshep here means the zodiac sign Taurus.
Also in the above reference you will see how Reshep was depicted as a
bull,
but here's the caption from the image:
"A bull-headed god (Baal ? Reshep ? Pharaoh ?) wearing the white crown of
Pharaoh with tassel, smites an Asiatic enemy. The Phoenicians, Syrians and
Canaanites came under Egyptian domination by the Egyptian New Kingdom,
1560-1200 BCE. Their art developed into a syncretic form, that is, at
times
they show their native gods and goddesses with Egyptian regal
paraphernalia
(crowns, winged sun disks, flying scarab beetles). This iconographic
tradition extended down to Hellenistic times in these areas. Israel in
Iron
II times also adopted similar Phoenician forms. In Late Bronze Age myths,
Baal was a war-god and storm-god, the thunder was his "bellowing
bull-voice." The Egyptians assimilated him with their god, Seth, and he
also
appears to have been assimilated to Reshep, the Syrian war and plague god.
In the Bible Reshep accompanies the Hebrew God in the Sinai as a minor
deity."
Bottom line is that line #2 merely is describing the Sun entering Hathor's
gate at sunrise. Sunrise is the time you can observe the zodiac position
of
the sun so Reshep is simply a reference to Taurus. How do we know,
because
that is the zodiac sign for that dating in the month of Hiyyaru. There's
no
choice. But the concept of Reshep and Taurus are well matched.
Now I ran this by Rohl's discussants and they basically agreed with me and
said that Rohl was going to back away from this eclipse. That's makes
sense, since obviously the Egyptian version of this eclipse event makes
100%
more sense. But in practice he still uses this eclipse as a cornerstone
of
his presentation. Why? Because it's impressive! You've got an eclipse
reference that ONLY works in 1012 BCE. And Rohl emphasizes that
repeatedly,
that this is something that has to happen near sunset. He translates
"ENTER" to "going in" which then gets linked to the "going in of the sun",
our modern concept for sunrise. But even with that, the reference should
be
the "going in of the sun through HER GATE", since the act of interaction
with a gate is to ENTER it or goin in it. It's not a complex concept.
THE
SUN ENTER HATHOR'S [HER] GATE IN TAURUS.
But as noted, though convinced by the better translation, they decided to
drop the KTU 1.78 from their primary reference, but not so. It is KEY to
Rohl's step down into the 11th century from the 14th century. So, of
course, since he didn't change his tune, I thought he was just a book
salesman after a gullible market. When I later joined the New Chronology
discussion group I was forbidden to discuss the KTU 1.78 text, though it
was
key to Rohl's New Chronology.
So yes, definitely a very charming BOOK SALESMAN, who knows what sells and
has got a good argument going, except when you catch him being dishonest
or
avoiding the critical details. But few take him seriously anyway, so
what's
the matter. He's a fun part of the landscape and I hope he's happy with
his
millions, but he's an academic joke at this point. But why should he
care?
He's found his way to make a fortune and be famous, so I give him credit
for
that. PLUS I get lots of "perks" from Rohl since he brings to the table
some rare research that I don't come across with the other "Biblical
archaeologists".
Rohl probably knows he's on weak academic ground for certain points, but
why
give up the empire he's built? And his books are amazingly well
presented,
extremely professional, very impressive. But that's what a salesman must
do
anyway: Flash over substance. Hey! Dollars matter. If you have to cut a
few corners to keep the public fooled then, the bottom line always counts,
right?
Oh well! Us poor "starving artists" will just have to struggle on
somehow!
Lars Wilson
|
