This may be just more journalistic paleobabble. But just as likely, it is a “new” naturalistic explanation of the biblical plagues that will have the same problems and limitations of similar earlier efforts. What’s interesting (to me anyway) is that if it’s a better proposal, it argues for the late chronology.
The Biblical Plagues
Yes, this is the same thing that book by Sivertsen was arguing. Did you end up reading it? Did it make anything approaching a good case?
never got to it – but I will; it’s still on my desk at home. That’s a high priority position, even if it takes a while.
Yup. More PaleoBabble. Thera eruption occurred 350 years before Ramesses II began to reign.
Do you favor the traditional identification of Ramasses II as the Pharaoh of the exodus? or an earlier option like Ahmose I?
interesting use of “traditional” here. Ramesses II is actually not the traditional pharaoh, if by “traditional” you mean “the view that derives from taking the Old Testament chronology at face value.” Taking the biblical (chronological) numbers at face value means it is impossible to have Ramesses II as the pharaoh. (you get Amenhotep II or Thutmose III, depending on which Egyptian chronology you follow). Ramesses II is the “late date” pharaoh and is arrived at only by taking the 480 in 1 Kings 6:1 as not being literal, but reflecting 12 generations of approx. 40 years to be the point of the number. I don’t really have a dog in the fight.
My apologies for not being more clear. By “traditional” what I meant was that I was under the impression that the late date is the more commonly accepted in the academic community. Is that incorrect?
I’m also curious what your thoughts are on David Rohl and his theory about the Habiru mentioned in the Amarna letters being David’s mercenary group etc.
That is correct. Regarding Rohl, I think on one hand that he does a great service in pointing out the problems with the traditional chronology. I think many of his criticisms ought to be taken seriously. (In particular, the Sothic underpinnings ought to be abandoned; some Egyptologists have done that, many still cling to them). I am less enthused by his proposals. I think he exaggerates data in a number of instances. But on the balance, he should not be dismissed.