1 of 1

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 3

Legend, he uses the Bible to underpin his arguments. As you will see it is not that the stories of the Bible do not contain historical documentation, they do, but you have got to know how to read what is put in front of you. One of the big problems with recorded history, particularly ancient history, is people's names. There has long been a very direct argument that there is no written or archaeological evidence to support either Solomon or David, two of the best known characters of the Old Testament. That's because their names are really titles, Solomon comes from the root word meaning peace and David from the word beloved. So instead of looking for the actual names as found in the Bible, you should be looking for a king or leader who unified the kingdoms and was well loved by his people and his son who ruled through a time known for peace. When this method is applied the corresponding historical players are easily identified and the likes of Saul, Samuel, Jonathan, David and Solomon spring to life in full glory. Once these characters are tied down in history to a known point the method can be used to push back in time to locate the earlier patriarchs, Joshua, Moses and Joseph.

All the time two methods of supporting these theories are used. Archaeological evidence is used to tie in these new ideas to physical support, such as the destruction of Jericho to help locate the historical place for Joshua. But a bigger supporting factor is written evidence. Using the Bible alone is not enough to fix the historical realities that Rohl is trying to establish here and so he uses contemporary writings to cross-reference his findings. There is a wealth of information in the diplomatic correspondence of Egyptian Pharoahs, in particular the El-Amarna letters of Akhenaten, and from this various characters can be recognised, if not by name but by their actions and political positions. As if this were not enough, very inflexible historical factors such as solar eclipses, floods, famines and other natural disasters further tie in defined points in history until his theories seem to stand very strongly on their own foundations.

David Rohl stands in a very fortunate position from which to launch his theories. He is an insider from the point of view of the establishment; he is working in established areas, even if his is attempting a complete overhaul. Whereas the likes of Andrew Collins and Graham Hancock are based in completely new territories and therefore are viewed with disdain

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Book reviews: A Test of Time, by David Rohl?
We want to hear your view. Write now!