Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Chronology (was : Rohl)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Chronology (was : Rohl)
  • Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:18:02 -0400


Dear Binger,

Thank you for your contribution. I have answered you separately re
Centuries in Darkness. Rohl does look at C-14 dating and
dendrochronology, and basically rejects them as unreliable. I think he
is too quick in doing this, but I am not an expert. Rohl also has
unanswered questions (and admits it) re correspondences with Assyria.

As for your second question, it comes down to: Why should Rohl seek
for truth? The best answer is "because it's there"! As a scholar and
Egyptologist, or would-be scholar and Egyptologist, he has found
inconsistencies in the conventional chronological framework and has
tried (as part of a research programme together with others) to solve
these inconsistencies. Whether he has succeeded or not is a question
for his peers, though it seems they are not taking him too seriously
because they have too much invested in the status quo.

Then the third question. Rohl can hardly be blamed for the marketing
strategy of his publishers and/or other booksellers. That
advertisement is still on the web, I found it yesterday. But the main
question is, why did the British Museum "ban" his book, i.e.
presumably choose not to sell it? (It has not been rejected by the
British Library!) Perhaps simply because its approach is too popular.
More likely because the Egyptologists of the BM do not accept Rohl's
theories, again perhaps because they have too much invested in the
status quo. Or perhaps they were pressurised by those who throw names
like "Velikovsky" around, when Rohl's theories have little to do with
Velikovsky. Who knows? Try asking the BM. I don't think it
unreasonable for them to choose to sell the books which correspond to
the theories presented in their museum, so as not to confuse their
visitors. On the other hand, that should not be taken as indication
that any other book is unscientific.

On the other hand, I have no patience with those who try to impose
censorship in the name of scholarship. True scholarship should have
nothing to fear from fringe theories, it should be prepared to answer
them in a rational way and accept for proper academic investigation
any points which cannot be convincingly repudiated immediately. On
this basis Rohl's arguments certainly require proper academic
investigation rather than attempted censorship.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Chronology (was : Rohl)
Author: <binger.hougaard AT get2net.dk> at Internet
Date: 29/09/1999 02:38


Please pardon my bursting in from lurkdom.
And please pardon my (probably) stupid question :
>From the discussion going on, it seems as if Rohl is simply using the
material found in Peter James (et al) "Centuries of Darkness". That is
supposedly a scholarly book, and whereas the questions the authors ask in
that book are very pertinent, I'm less than impressed with the way they
evaluate the biblical material, viz. basically as being more believable than
dendrochronology and C-14 datings.
Naturally any reconstruction of chronology must be just that, but to
re-order the entire chronology of the ANE, including re-dating the
inevitable synchronisms between the various states and the chronological
sequences of pottery, in order to make the bible and the archaeology of
Israel/Palestine fit together seems to be a bit drastic. This is - more or
less - what is done in the above book, and from what I can infer, more or
less what Rohl does.
So, to me the second, stupid question is : Why should this be necessary ? I
can see the necessity in a context of a faith that wants stories to be true,
but in a scholarly context where the object presumably should be to discuss
the data at hand, no matter how inconvenient ?
And the final stupid question with regard to Rohl : how can a book be
considered to be a serious work, deserving scholarly attention, when it used
to be sold on the web under the headline "The book that was banned by the
British Museum", meaning that BM wouldn't sell it because it was too much
fiction and too little fact ?

Greetings
T. Binger
University of Aarhus

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.




  • Chronology (was : Rohl), Tilde Binger, 09/29/1999
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Chronology (was : Rohl), peter_kirk, 09/30/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page