Gary A. Byers
Over the past two years, British historian David Rohl has captured the imagination of many Bible students and at the same time created quite a stir among scholars. Through his book Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest (Crown, 1995) and a video by the same name, Rohl has attempted to completely overhaul ancient Near Eastern chronology. His purpose is to tie together Biblical personages and events to similar sounding references in ancient historical records. To bolster his case, he quotes a number of experts in their respective fields of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Assyrian and Israelite history.
While the scope of his work is vast and hinges on a number of technical issues, it can be summarized as follows. Rohl proposed a realignment of ancient Near Eastern chronologies, shifting dates up to 350 years. His work attempts to fill the gaps we presently have in ancient chronologies, allowing the identification of Biblical personages with ancient representations known from other sources.
The material Rohl focuses on is quite technical. His case centers on dropping the 21st Egyptian Dynasty (1069–945 BC) into being contemporary with Egypt’s 22nd Dynasty (945–715 BC). This allows him to connect names and events from ancient history with similar sounding Biblical events and people, even though they were separated by as many as 350 years.
Admittedly, Rohl’s idea is quite appealing to those frustrated by the lack of connection between Biblical and secular history. Conservatives want to tie Biblical events to ancient history, and the connections he makes sound reasonable and offer some interesting possibilities. Due to the technical nature of his work, however, few are capable of responding authoritatively. Consequently, his work has received widespread media attention and has become popular among conservatives. But all is not well in Rohl-land!
One of the experts who appeared in Rohl’s videos is Egyptologist Dr. Kenneth Kitchen, a conservative evangelical scholar. Kitchen says he was interviewed in his Liverpool England home by Rohl on May 17, 1995, for seven hours. Kitchen only appears in Rohl’s three-video series for a total of about three minutes. Professor of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool, Kitchen was not at all happy with Rohl’s finished product.
BSP 10:2/3 (Spring/Summer 1997) p. 51
Sour grapes? Probably not. Angry that he did not get more air time? I doubt it.
Kitchen later said he had great reservations about giving the interview because he understood Rohl’s arguments all too well. “The easy way out,” he said, “was simply to say, ‘You are 98% rubbish—go away’ which would be academically justified” (personal communication). But for all experts to respond that way would allow Rohl to go forward with no detractors. So Kitchen agreed to the interview.
According to Kitchen, most of the interview was spent with Kitchen demonstrating to Rohl why his theories are wrong and do not work. In retrospect, Kitchen said he later realized that Rohl was only looking for sound bites, not new information. “It is clear, now, that he had most of his filming already in the can by May 17th, and his book virtually ready for press” (personal communication).
In particular, Kitchen said he demonstrated evidence which directly contradicted Rohl’s views. With Rohl’s main focus on Egyptian chronology, Kitchen’s speciality, he provided Rohl with primary evidence from several vital genealogies of the 21st and 22nd Egyptian dynasties. In addition, he presented continuous lines of high priests for Amun (in Thebes) and Ptah (in Memphis) going through both dynasties. Kitchen said Rohl communicated he was unaware of this material. Furthermore, Kitchen answered Rohl’s two great anomalies in Egyptian chronology—the cache of royal reburial near Deir el-Bahri and the lack of Apis bull burials for the 21st Dynasty.
Finally, Kitchen provided parallels in the Assyrian King List, The Assyrian Eponym List and the Babylonian King list, with crosslinks illustrated by the synchronous history and Chronicle P. Additional links to New Kingdom Egypt and Hatti, plus markers showing which kings of Assyria successively built in the national shrine at Assur, also bolstered Kitchen’s case.
As a coup de grace, Kitchen brought out what he called “one totally damning little text” (personal communication) from Deir el-Medina in west Thebes. It precisely dated the Nile inundation at a specific time, an occurance which takes place only once every 1460 years. As far as Kitchen is concerned, Rohl’s proposed “corrections” of ancient Near Eastern chronologies was dead in the water (Kitchen 1995: xlii-xlvi).
While Rohl’s books and videos appear to make a convincing case for his side, he unfortunately chose to ignore contradictory evidence from Kitchen and other scholars. Consequently, while Rohl’s work sounds good, it simply does not work with the known facts of Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Palestinian chronologies.
Rohl’s efforts focused on eliminating the gaps in ancient Near Eastern chronologies. Yet, it must be understood that these gaps are not unaccounted periods in the history of those civilizations. They only represent our incomplete and uneven knowledge of these histories. Thus, it is alright for us to have gaps; they do not invalidate the known facts. It is not possible to simply drop or add 350 years to these
BSP 10:2/3 (Spring/Summer 1997) p. 52
chronologies, despite the supposed connections Rohl makes by doing so.
While the Associates for Biblical Research staff, too, is often at odds with conventional chronologies, it is important to be honest with the known facts and deal with them. Rohl has only used selective facts which fit his views. This may sell books and videos, but is not good scholarship.
Rohl’s efforts are creative and not bad in themselves. Unfortunately, they do not stand up with the corpus of known evidence. The real problem is that Rohl is aware of this, but goes ahead anyway. It is good for business, but bad for a better understanding of the Bible and the ancient world. In fact, ill-founded efforts like Rohl’s actually hurt other scholars who are honestly trying to make the same type of connections between the Bible and secular history.
Bibliography
Kitchen, K.A.
1995 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.), 3rd edition. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.