The Four Pillars of Egyptian Chronology

[neocon_voter]

[QUOTE=Bubbahotep]So you won't trust the Egyptian sources yet you put your faith entirely in the Bible, even when it is full of obvious extravagant exaggerations itself? Let me give you a few examples:

1) 1 Chronicles 22:14 has David using 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver to build the Temple. The amount of gold was worth $3 billion while the silver amounts to $2 billion. As noted by Dennis McKinsey in his 2000 book "Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide" the gold and silver referenced here was more than Imperial Rome ever had at its height. An obvious "extravagant exaggeration", wouldn't you say?

2) Numbers 11:31-32 talks about the quail gathered up by the Hebrews and says that each Hebrew gathered at least 10 homers of quail after God dumped quail all around the Hebrew camp for a distance of a day's walk to a depth of two cubits. As McKinsey points out, the amount of quail would have been a cubic mile, or enough to fill 40 million railroad boxcars. The train needed to haul such a trainload of quail would stretch 350,000 miles long. Since the homer unit of measure is about ten bushels every Hebrew would have gathered at least 100 bushels, or about 800 gallons of quail. "Estimating fifteen quail to the gallon gives twelve thousand [quail for each Hebrew]". (ibid:190) Another "extravagant exaggeration".

3) 2 Chronicles 13:17 says that 500,000 Israelites died in a single battle. That is almost as many people as died in the entire US Civil War, which lasted four years and where both sides had many, many times the population of the US. Another "extravagant exaggeration".

4) 2 Chronciles 17:14-18 claims that 1,160,000 soldiers were mustered in the exact same place. No ancient army was that large, let alone could have mustered in a single place.

5) 2 Chronicles 13:3 says that between them, Abijah and Jeroboam had 1,200,000 soldiers, an obvious exaggeration as probably not even that many people lived in all of Palestine/Israel/Judaea at that time.

6) 1 Kings 10:14 says that Solomon received 666 talents of gold in one year (in tribute/taxation). This amounts to about $20 million dollars worth of gold. The Roman Empire received only $22,500,000 per year from all of its Asiatic provinces, and it controlled a vastly greater area of Asia than Solomon ever did (ibid:193), and the Roman period was much wealthier overall than the ca. 1000 BC period.

Those are just a few of the many "extravagant exaggerations" we read about in the Bible. Yet you trust it completely while and don't question the possibility that maybe not everything recorded in the Bible is entirely accurate while you question Egyptian sources because of similar exaggerations.

Yes, but at least I admit my belief is based on faith.

QUOTE=Bubbahotep But another important point arises here; the issue at hand isn't one of whether we should believe everything the Egyptians tell us. It has to do with reconsidering Egyptian chronology to see if the Biblical Exodus can be fit into the rest of the history of the Ancient Near East as reconstructed by archaeologists and historians. But as I've already pointed out, the Egyptian chronology is quite secure and major revisions such as those of Rohl and James, simply cannot work as the chronology is too secure and the revisions cause more problems than they claim to solve and even those solutions are only considered due to ignorance. Reconsideration demonstrates that Rohl and James' arguments against the traditional chronology are based upon mistakes that they made in interpreting the evidence.

That's YOUR issue, not mine. I only came to this chronology thread because YOU called me to it.
I already stated I don't have that big a problem with the chronology. I can place the Hebrews in Egypt as slaves during Thutmose I just as easily as Josephus can write that the Hyksos were the Hebrews.
I'll use one of my Donald Redford books again since you're the one who suggested I ought to 'read up on' him.

PAPYRUS AND TABLET Edited A.K.Grayson and Donald Redford page 24-25 ISBN 0136483941

Tombos Stela of Thutmose I, c. 1511 B.C.: Regnal year 2, 2nd month of Inundation, day 15, under the Majesty of … the king of Upper and Lower Egypt ‘Okheperkare, given life, the son of Re, Thutmose …., being the second year after he was inducted and rose to power as overlord of the Two Lands, to rule what the sun-disc encircles, viz. the Southland and the Northland, from the limits of the ‘Portions’ of the Two Lands; when, at the Union of the Two Lands, he sat upon the throne of Geb, and the crowns and the mighty double diadem were elevated.

Now His Majesty had taken his inheritance and had seated himself upon the dais of Horus in order to extend the frontiers of Thebes, the property of She-who-Faces-Her-Lord, to enslave the dirty ones, the foreigners, and those whom the god detests, the Hau-nebu …. The southerners come north and the northerners come south, and all lands together bear their tribute to the Good God, the primordial king, ‘Okheperkare, may he live eternally.

© source where applicable

Thutmose I enslaved foreigners. And as I have already pointed out, if there was any bad news with those slaves, Egyptians would not have recorded it.
And I don't have a problem with a bronze age Jericho, since any claim putting its fall in the iron age is based on skimpy evidence of shards found in a limited excavation area.

QUOTE=Bubbahotep Then the least you can do is read chsalvia's points and admit to us that his evidence is persuasive. You can say you won't buy his argument because you want to research it further but at least you can admit that upon the evidence he has brought forth his arguments against Rohl's revision are solid. Surely you can follow his argument well enough to consider that. What I find intellectually dishonest is your disagreeing or simply not agreeing with his conclusions without providing a shred of evidence to support your disagreement and then claiming that you'll need to research it further when chances are you'll simply drop out of this thread and then show up months or years later, without ever having done the research you claimed, that we should seriously consider these kinds of redatings because they make such better fits with the evidence. I apologize if it appears I doubt your sincerity but I've seen many Christian apologists like yourself and almost every single one I have countered on this kind of argument has done just that.

Are you projecting?
How many times do I have to tell you I am not familiar with Rohl's work? Aye chihuahua, are you just thick or what.

And why do you have a problem with Christians researching and becoming informed before you engage them. Can't you handle that?

QUOTE=Bubbahotep You could say as much about most pharaohs; so why the special interest in Amasis II? Why is his reign so intriguing to you, more than all the others? I've looked at the reign of Amasis II a fair bit myself and I can tell you why he interests me but I'll do so after you admit why his reign interests you.

Obviously Ezekiel's prophecy. No secret there.

Neocon_Voter

[Bubbahotep]

Yes, but at least I admit my belief is based on faith.

So in other words you disregard all evidence contrary to your religious beliefs, even when your holy scripture makes historical claims. So why do you involve yourself with any evidence and historical argumentation since clearly any evidence that would make a normal person question their beliefs you simply disregard? I can't believe you can't see the blatant hypocrisy of your position; you present the inaccuracies of Egyptian records as a reason to disbelieve their accounts yet you completely ignore all the problems in your own religious history, even though we have a lot of contemporary Egyptian historical records, which are all but completely lacking for your OT histories.

That's YOUR issue, not mine. I only came to this chronology thread because YOU called me to it.
I already stated I don't have that big a problem with the chronology.

Then why did you enter into a discussion on chronology?

I can place the Hebrews in Egypt as slaves during Thutmose I just as easily as Josephus can write that the Hyksos were the Hebrews.

No you can't. It is not that easy to just invent stuff out of thin air. If you do you'll get called out on it. Yes, there were slaves in Egypt during pretty much the whole of the New Kingdom. But there's no evidence there were any Hebrews in existence during the mid-second millenium BC. The OT contains a bunch of anachronisms (the problem of having been written a thousand years after the events supposedly took place; similar problems plague Homer's work). Now it is quite likely that some of the Asiatic slaves included the ancestors of the Hebrews but the real story of their leaving Egypt was not the Exodus story of the Bible. The OT cannot be 100% true. I already pointed that out to you and rather than admit that your Bible has clear errors and exaggerations you just smugly tried to pass it off by claiming your position is based on faith. But really, why should I even respond any further to you? You clearly have no respect for evidence or historical argumentation; you simply ignore the problems in one set of historical data while pouncing on those of another that you don't want to believe in. I will have to seriously reconsider my decision to engage you in continuing discussion as I really don't see you having anything but a completely irrational position. Perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise but I won't be holding my breath.

Thutmose I enslaved foreigners. And as I have already pointed out, if there was any bad news with those slaves, Egyptians would not have recorded it.

You're right; we wouldn't expect them to mention bad news regarding their slaves. However, if the Exodus story is correct then the Jewish population was so large that it made up a good half of the entire population of Egypt ... and yet they only had two midwives for that huge population! Only a complete fool would accept the story as written. Furthermore, if that population left Egypt it would be identifiable archaeologically. But no such evidence has ever been found; rather, Egypt is absolutely booming throughout the 18th and 19th dynasties. And the Conquest, which follows the Exodus, cannot be accomodated as we have contemporary archaeological evidence that completely contradicts the historical portrait of the region for the period as given in the OT. The failure of archaeology to fit with the Bible is precisely why so many Christians have jumped on revisionist chronology.

Are you projecting?
How many times do I have to tell you I am not familiar with Rohl's work? Aye chihuahua, are you just thick or what.

I was telling you that if you aren't familiar with his work then why not read chsalvia's posts and comment on them. You'll learn a whole lot from them and then you can at least admit that chronological revisions of such a large amount of time just aren't feasible and we can drop this pointless consideration of alternative chronologies. Then you'll be left with nothing but trying to shoe horn the OT stories into the conventional chronology and that just doesn't work as everyone but the lunatic fringe of Christians who can't accept the errancy of scripture acknowledges.

And why do you have a problem with Christians researching and becoming informed before you engage them. Can't you handle that?

Neocon_voter, you are clearly ignorant when it comes to Egyptian history and chronology and yet you presume to lecture us on the fallibility of Egyptian records as a reason to believe the Bible rather than our modern understanding of ancient Egyptian history. Such hubris is shocking and I won't let you get away with promoting your falsehoods and ignorant position. I will point out the facts, not only that demonstrate your apologetic ideas to be in error but in support of the conventional history and chronology of Egypt and the ancient Near East that simply demonstrate that your OT stories cannot be 100% true.

Obviously Ezekiel's prophecy. No secret there.

Thank you. You do realize that this prophecy is one of the easiest to prove was a failure, right? When you predict that a given region of the earth will become entirely desolate and uninhabited for 40 years it is unbelievably easy to disprove that. All you need find is any small evidence or artifact that proves there were humans in Egypt during those 40 years and the prophecy clearly was a failure. And not only do we have such evidence, we have evidence that Egypt was flourishing during that period. We actually have monuments with Amasis' name on them that prove beyond any doubt that Ezekiel's prophecy was a miserable failure. So on what do you base your faith in the Bible, neocon_voter? It surely isn't evidence or the facts or reason? Wishful thinking is all it appears to be.

Neocon_Voter[/QUOTE]

[neocon_voter]

[QUOTE=Bubbahotep]So in other words you disregard all evidence contrary to your religious beliefs, even when your holy scripture makes historical claims. So why do you involve yourself with any evidence and historical argumentation since clearly any evidence that would make a normal person question their beliefs you simply disregard? I can't believe you can't see the blatant hypocrisy of your position; you present the inaccuracies of Egyptian records as a reason to disbelieve their accounts yet you completely ignore all the problems in your own religious history, even though we have a lot of contemporary Egyptian historical records, which are all but completely lacking for your OT histories.

My goodness, how many citations does one have to present to convince you they do not disregard evidence. I have posted more references from unbiased sources, (at least not biased toward the Bible), and all you do is carry on about Rohl and only one book by Redford. I have read more texts vis-a-vis the ANE than I can remember and have not found anything that threatens Biblical reliability, but plenty to question Egyptian reliability. I don't want to be rude, but have you yourself studied anything besides Rohl in this subject?

QUOTE=Bubbahotep Then why did you enter into a discussion on chronology?

Manetho deals with chronology. I cited the available material on Manetho and attached 6 pages of example of conflicting chronologies from Waddel's translation.

QUOTE=Bubbahotep No you can't. It is not that easy to just invent stuff out of thin air. If you do you'll get called out on it. Yes, there were slaves in Egypt during pretty much the whole of the New Kingdom. But there's no evidence there were any Hebrews in existence during the mid-second millenium BC. The OT contains a bunch of anachronisms (the problem of having been written a thousand years after the events supposedly took place; similar problems plague Homer's work). Now it is quite likely that some of the Asiatic slaves included the ancestors of the Hebrews but the real story of their leaving Egypt was not the Exodus story of the Bible. The OT cannot be 100% true. I already pointed that out to you and rather than admit that your Bible has clear errors and exaggerations you just smugly tried to pass it off by claiming your position is based on faith. But really, why should I even respond any further to you? You clearly have no respect for evidence or historical argumentation; you simply ignore the problems in one set of historical data while pouncing on those of another that you don't want to believe in. I will have to seriously reconsider my decision to engage you in continuing discussion as I really don't see you having anything but a completely irrational position. Perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise but I won't be holding my breath.

Yes I can present possible valid scenarios based on ancient tablets to make the point that you don't have a slam-dunk when you attempt to invalidate the Exodus story.

QUOTE=Bubbahotep
You're right; we wouldn't expect them to mention bad news regarding their slaves. However, if the Exodus story is correct then the Jewish population was so large that it made up a good half of the entire population of Egypt ... and yet they only had two midwives for that huge population! Only a complete fool would accept the story as written. Furthermore, if that population left Egypt it would be identifiable archaeologically. But no such evidence has ever been found; rather, Egypt is absolutely booming throughout the 18th and 19th dynasties. And the Conquest, which follows the Exodus, cannot be accomodated as we have contemporary archaeological evidence that completely contradicts the historical portrait of the region for the period as given in the OT. The failure of archaeology to fit with the Bible is precisely why so many Christians have jumped on revisionist chronology

Perhaps you can tell us the population of Egypt, and provide a source. And when I say a source, not just some website that makes a claim without explaining how they come to that number.

Absolutely booming? Throughout? Why didn't Ahkanaten send help to the Levant? Have you ever heard of the Amarna letters?

Ramesses II had to invent a victory over the Hittites at Kadesh.


[

B]QUOTE=Bubbahotep[/B] I was telling you that if you aren't familiar with his work then why not read chsalvia's posts and comment on them. You'll learn a whole lot from them and then you can at least admit that chronological revisions of such a large amount of time just aren't feasible and we can drop this pointless consideration of alternative chronologies.

we?

QUOTE=Bubbahotep Then you'll be left with nothing but trying to shoe horn the OT stories into the conventional chronology and that just doesn't work as everyone but the lunatic fringe of Christians who can't accept the errancy of scripture acknowledges.

Neocon_voter, you are clearly ignorant when it comes to Egyptian history and chronology and yet you presume to lecture us on the fallibility of Egyptian records as a reason to believe the Bible rather than our modern understanding of ancient Egyptian history. Such hubris is shocking and I won't let you get away with promoting your falsehoods and ignorant position. I will point out the facts, not only that demonstrate your apologetic ideas to be in error but in support of the conventional history and chronology of Egypt and the ancient Near East that simply demonstrate that your OT stories cannot be 100% true.

You haven't pointed out anything. You haven't backed up any of your claims. I am the one who has presented the citations in our discussion. All you have done is complain about Rohl.

QUOTE=Bubbahotep Thank you. You do realize that this prophecy is one of the easiest to prove was a failure, right? When you predict that a given region of the earth will become entirely desolate and uninhabited for 40 years it is unbelievably easy to disprove that. All you need find is any small evidence or artifact that proves there were humans in Egypt during those 40 years and the prophecy clearly was a failure. And not only do we have such evidence, we have evidence that Egypt was flourishing during that period. We actually have monuments with Amasis' name on them that prove beyond any doubt that Ezekiel's prophecy was a miserable failure. So on what do you base your faith in the Bible, neocon_voter? It surely isn't evidence or the facts or reason? Wishful thinking is all it appears to be.

It took all 44 years to build a few monuments? Give me a break. What evidence do you have that Egypt was flourishing during the whole of Amassis II's 'kingship'.

Neocon_Voter

[runtmc2jc]

How is is that Egyptian chronology is precise when the first dynasties were dated prior to the Rosetta Stone even being decypered?

[macattack]

Dunno whether this thread or website is actually still live? But if so, a comment from someone who's still struggling to get to grips with the minefield of ancient chronology: chsalvia, did you know that Rohl does acknowledge Assyrian difficulties and offers comments (albeit very superficial due to his lack of Assyriological expertise) on at least one of the points you have mentioned above regarding the king-lists? These are to be found in Appendix E ('Assyrian Chronology') of A Test of Time. Either way it does seem a bit disingenuous that he chooses not to mention this conflict very much in his main text, thus creating the impression that obstacles other than the ones he deals explicitly with are relatively minor..

[Adam]

Dunno whether this thread or website is actually still live? But if so, a comment from someone who's still struggling to get to grips with the minefield of ancient chronology: chsalvia, did you know that Rohl does acknowledge Assyrian difficulties and offers comments (albeit very superficial due to his lack of Assyriological expertise) on at least one of the points you have mentioned above regarding the king-lists? These are to be found in Appendix E ('Assyrian Chronology') of A Test of Time. Either way it does seem a bit disingenuous that he chooses not to mention this conflict very much in his main text, thus creating the impression that obstacles other than the ones he deals explicitly with are relatively minor..

Thanks to you, mac,
I discovered this thread and read through it, adding my "Amen" to many of Jezz's posts.
I have read David Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings (known outside the U. S as A Test of Time), 1995, and was quite impressed. Knowing that Jezz is a convinced believer in Rohl firms me up as a believer as well, since I know Jezz is quite intelligent and thorough.
And to repeat as Jezz said many times in his posts on the earliest pages archived here, Rohl believes what he believes based on his own research, not from a prejudice in favor of the Bible. Rohl is not a Fundamentalist, as anyone who has read his book would know. (For Fundamentalists, the preferred research would be that of Ronald E. Wyatt, as fleshed out in Dr. Lennart Moller's The Exodus Case, 2002 (also available in a spectacular DVD).
Adam

[shunyadragon]

Thanks to you, mac,
I discovered this thread and read through it, adding my "Amen" to many of Jezz's posts.
I have read David Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings (known outside the U. S as A Test of Time), 1995, and was quite impressed. Knowing that Jezz is a convinced believer in Rohl firms me up as a believer as well, since I know Jezz is quite intelligent and thorough.
And to repeat as Jezz said many times in his posts on the earliest pages archived here, Rohl believes what he believes based on his own research, not from a prejudice in favor of the Bible. Rohl is not a Fundamentalist, as anyone who has read his book would know. (For Fundamentalists, the preferred research would be that of Ronald E. Wyatt, as fleshed out in Dr. Lennart Moller's The Exodus Case, 2002 (also available in a spectacular DVD).
Adam

Rohl may not be fundimentalist, but he leans too heavily on the Bible for Exodus without fully acknowledging the difficulties and conflicts with other sources of evidence, and lack of evidence for a large scale Biblical Exodus and invasion of Canaan..

[Adam]

Rohl may not be fundimentalist, but he leans too heavily on the Bible for Exodus without fully acknowledging the difficulties and conflicts with other sources of evidence, and lack of evidence for a large scale Biblical Exodus and invasion of Canaan..

Right,
As I said, if you're an inerrantist your best bet is Lennart Mohler with his The Exodus Case update of Ronald Wyatt, who died in 1999. With the Middle Route and the crossing of the Red Sea at Nuweiba (the narrow, shallow middle of the Gulf of Aqaba) on the way to Jabal Al Lawz in Saudi Arabia, a vast multitude can be accommodated.
I don't believe Mohler and Rohl can be reconciled, so I see it as Fundamentalists picking Mohler, conservative Christians going with Rohl, and Orthodox Jews have their own Mt. Sinai in the north where the Naked Archaeologist, Simcha Jacobovici places it in his The Exodus Decoded. By picking and choosing how much of the Torah he accepts, Rohl doesn't have to have two million people going all the way to ther traditional Mt. Sinai in the far south, Gebel Mousa (above the monastery of St. Catherine). The southern Sinai is too barren and the valleys to narrow to accommodate two million people, and no archaeological evidence of them has been found there.
Adam

[Jezz]

Thanks to you, mac,
I discovered this thread and read through it, adding my "Amen" to many of Jezz's posts.
I have read David Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings (known outside the U. S as A Test of Time), 1995, and was quite impressed. Knowing that Jezz is a convinced believer in Rohl firms me up as a believer as well, since I know Jezz is quite intelligent and thorough.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I am a convinced believer. There is too that I haven't investigated myself from primary sources (particularly with regards to the CC). I certainly consider it highly plausible and I don't think he deserves the criticism he has attracted. Indeed, I can't quite understand why the attacks on him have been so vitriolic.

And to repeat as Jezz said many times in his posts on the earliest pages archived here, Rohl believes what he believes based on his own research, not from a prejudice in favor of the Bible. Rohl is not a Fundamentalist, as anyone who has read his book would know.

Yes, this is true. There is much that Rohl says that would file a fundamentalist (more so in "Legend" than in "Pharoahs and Kings/A Test of Time").

[Jezz]

Rohl may not be fundimentalist, but he leans too heavily on the Bible for Exodus without fully acknowledging the difficulties and conflicts with other sources of evidence, and lack of evidence for a large scale Biblical Exodus and invasion of Canaan..

Far from not "fully acknowledging the difficulties and conflicts with other sources of evidence, and lack of evidence for a large scale Biblical Exodus and invasion of Canaan" as you assert, this is where Rohl actually starts his reasoning. He asks the question, "why is there such a discrepancy"? Your answer is simply "Exodus is completely made up", he has come up with an alternative answer (ie, "the evidence has been dated incorrectly"). On the surface of it, either conclusion might be equally plausible - but to use one as the basis for refuting the other is simply begging the question. What you have said amounts to little more than "Rohl's wrong because Exodus is completely made up", or to put it even more simply: "Rohl's wrong because he's wrong".

[shunyadragon]

Far from not "fully acknowledging the difficulties and conflicts with other sources of evidence, and lack of evidence for a large scale Biblical Exodus and invasion of Canaan" as you assert, this is where Rohl actually starts his reasoning. He asks the question, "why is there such a discrepancy"? Your answer is simply "Exodus is completely made up", he has come up with an alternative answer (ie, "the evidence has been dated incorrectly"). On the surface of it, either conclusion might be equally plausible - but to use one as the basis for refuting the other is simply begging the question. What you have said amounts to little more than "Rohl's wrong because Exodus is completely made up", or to put it even more simply: "Rohl's wrong because he's wrong".

One important correction here is I did not say that the Exodus was 'completely' made up, and not that Rohl's wrong because he is wrong.' The problems of a literal Exodus are very real. I said the evidence indicates that migrations did occur, and Exodus represents a mix of facts concerning these migrations, and as a compliation of different stories into one with exagerations concerning the numbers involved, and an invasion of Canaan that most likely never happened.

[Jezz]

One important correction here is I did not say that the Exodus was 'completely' made up,

You thought it was important to point out that I used a hyperbole?

..and not that Rohl's wrong because he is wrong.'

No, you haven't explicitly said that. But it's what your argument implies.

The problems of a literal Exodus are very real. I said the evidence indicates that migrations did occur, and Exodus represents a mix of facts concerning these migrations, and as a compliation of different stories into one with exagerations concerning the numbers involved, and an invasion of Canaan that most likely never happened.

And all of this is based on the assumption that the conventional dating of the evidence you mention is correct - which is the very assumption that Rohl is challenging.

Rohl points out that there is plenty of evidence that closely matches the accounts given in Exodus through to Joshua - including a decimated Egyptian economy, a destroyed Jericho (complete with fallen walls) and several Canaanite cities that underwent a conflagration of some description (and which match those listed in Joshua). The only thing preventing this evidence from being associated with the Exodus is that it is considered to be "too early" - it doesn't fit the conventional timeline. Thus instead of explaining this by saying that Exodus-Joshua-Judges are largely a-historical, Rohl posits an alternative explanation - ie, that the evidence has been dated incorrectly. Trying to refute him with an argument based on the assumption that the evidence has been dated correctly is begging the very question at issue - ie, it amounts to a claim equivalent to "Rohl is wrong because he is wrong".

[shunyadragon]

Rohl points out that there is plenty of evidence that closely matches the accounts given in Exodus through to Joshua - including a decimated Egyptian economy, a destroyed Jericho (complete with fallen walls) and several Canaanite cities that underwent a conflagration of some description (and which match those listed in Joshua). The only thing preventing this evidence from being associated with the Exodus is that it is considered to be "too early" - it doesn't fit the conventional timeline. Thus instead of explaining this by saying that Exodus-Joshua-Judges are largely a-historical, Rohl posits an alternative explanation - ie, that the evidence has been dated incorrectly. Trying to refute him with an argument based on the assumption that the evidence has been dated correctly is begging the very question at issue - ie, it amounts to a claim equivalent to "Rohl is wrong because he is wrong".

First, you are misusing the 'begging the question' type of logic for many reasons. First, begging the question is for logical arguments, and not scientific research results. Primarilly the dating methodes do not presume the results, and they are correlated and corraborated by diifferent methodes by different researchers. The question,ie - What is the date the cities were destroyed?, is not circular with the dating methods nor does it presume the result based on different sources.

Second, Rohl did not present any coherent argument why he objected to the dating methods and the results. Can you cite why Rohl objected to the dating methods? The research is very extensive carried out over the past fifty years. The results are not controversial and accepted by the professional archeological community. There are more problems than dating of these cities and their destruction, which occured more than once. There is not any evidence for anything close to the numbers cited in the Bible anywhere in the Sinai or Canaan.

Third, it is clearly acknowledged that the evidence Rohl cites indicates migrations took place, but the dating, numbers, and other available records in the region do not match.

Again. Rohl has failed to coherently address the conflicts and problems with his work, and cites the sources that agree with the Bible for the dates and events in his conclusions.

The reason why Rohl's account is not generally accepted is he bases his account on a biased selection of evidence. Archeologists in general acknowledge all the different sources of evidence, the problems with dating, numbers and evience of events, and acknowledge that there are a number of possible scenarios for 'Exodus,' and reserve judgement a waiting the finding of further evidence.

[Adam]

As usual with you, Shunya,
It is not Rohl who is incoherent, but you.
Half the arguments you make Jezz has already refuted or even has said were the basis for Rohl to rething the chronology.
I'll leave it to Jezz to refute you specifically, if he thinks your case worthy of such.
If there is Carbon-14 evidence that refutes Rohl's chronology, please cite it. Otherwise you are just being circular, as Jezz has stated.
Adam

[shunyadragon]

As usual with you, Shunya,
It is not Rohl who is incoherent, but you.
Half the arguments you make Jezz has already refuted or even has said were the basis for Rohl to rething the chronology.
I'll leave it to Jezz to refute you specifically, if he thinks your case worthy of such.
If there is Carbon-14 evidence that refutes Rohl's chronology, please cite it. Otherwise you are just being circular, as Jezz has stated.
Adam

I believe that there were more than one migration, but let's begin with one.

Okay, let's take a look at some modern dating of two events. the eruption of Thera and the battle of Jericho.

The best modern dating for the eruption of Thera which I believe lead to this migration, and memories of the plagues and events recorded surrounding the exodus.

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/thera.html

According to current data, the last two great eruptions of Vesuvius occured in 3580 B.C.E and 79 C.E. (the latter being the eruption which buried Pompei and Herculaneum). Both Krakatoa and Thera have a Volcanic Explosivity Index or VEI of 6 which rates them as "colossal" with a plume height over 25 km and a displacement volume of between 10 and 100 ks km 3. Eruptions of this size occur only once every few hundred years on earth. Although the dating of pottery supports the fifteenth century time frame for the Thera eruption, dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating supported by historical records place it at 1628/7 B.C.E.

© source where applicable

The evidence for the best modern dating of the destruction of Jericho is about 1550 BCE. The carbon dating of the later date was done on chared grain, which would be more accurate than the wood samples.

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php

It is clear that the question is one of chronology. When was City IV Jericho destroyed? The scholarly consensus says ca. 1550 B.C., Wood says ca. 1400 B.C. What source can we turn to to settle this dispute?

In fact, radiocarbon is such a source. In the early 1990's, when Wood first published his claims, there was only one radiocarbon measurement available for City IV. It was from a piece of charcoal dated by the British Museum to 1410 plus or minus 40 years B.C. Unfortunately, this date was later retracted by the British Museum, along with dates of several hundred other samples. The British Museum found that their radiocarbon measurement apparatus had gone out of calibration for a period of time, and thus had yielded incorrect dates during that period. The corrected date for the charcoal sample from City IV turned out to be consistent with Kenyon's ca. 1550 B.C. date for the City IV destruction. The chart below is the same as the chart shown earlier. Heavy black bars have been added showing the range of dates radiocarbon gave from the six charred grain samples from City IV Jericho.

© source where applicable

Based on these two dates this migration that may be called the Exodus occured before 1550 BCE, which is an earlier date than the Rohl's or the traditional date around ~1447 BCE.

There is evidence of later migrations which will follow.