Taken from: JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(1) 2009 [Comment: The AMAIC does not consider that David Rohl, whose chronology Veronica Olaussen says below "may not be completely correct", has by any means discovered the correct model for a revised history, though he has made some very significant contributions in this regard].
Viewpoint
How convincing are the arguments for a
new Egyptian chronology?
Veronica Kristine Olaussen
The Conventional Chronology (CC) links up with the Bible in the person of Pharaoh Shoshenk I, who is identified with the biblical Shishak. But David Rohl holds that the CC does not fit with other parts of the Bible. If the CC is followed, there is a huge gap, a ‘dark age’, where there should be evidence for Hebrew history. On the other hand, Egyptology professor Kenneth Kitchen, who is a firm supporter of the CC, accepts no clash. He states that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’.1
The CC is based on the king list as compiled by the Egyptian priest Manetho, and additionally what Rohl identifies as ‘four pillars’. Rohl claims that there are compelling anomalies in the CC, as well as serious weaknesses in at least three of the CC’s four pillars. However, according to Chris Bennett, these anomalies alone are no basis for a completely new chronology; to be certain about the distant past is difficult. Some of what is presented on popular television as ‘undisputed fact’ appear after all to be based on questionable assumptions. Rohl’s New Chronology may not be completely correct, but the weaknesses he documents in the CC show that the
conventional wisdom regarding the ancient Egyptian timeline merits re-examination.
....
JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(1) 2009
61
